the Congress determined there would be no further advertising of cigarettes on these facilities.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Mr. Pearson.

Senator PEARSON. Mr. Burch, I note and commend you on your statement that your partisan and political faith will have no part in any decision that you reach. I want to ask you a question relating to that general area.

You went through a political contest in 1964 that attracted some attention and I know that when I go through a campaign, those broadcasters who say favorable things are wise and discriminating and those who say unfavorable things lack wisdom and fairness.

I want to ask you, from your experience, do you carry any bitterness, any prejudice against anybody in the broadcasting business, from those results of 1964 or any events since then?

Mr. BURCH. Senator, I have a lot of memories of 1964, let me say that. I don't really feel I have any prejudices or any memories I want to atone for in the future. I can recall a number of instances-I have often thought of writing a piece about them-of obvious glaring errors that were committed. I think these were committed honestly by the particular network involved.

But nevertheless, they were committed. I think that that will happen in the future. I think it will happen to Democrats, as well as Republicans. And frankly it is sort of interesting to me to find that whereas in 1964 I think the Republican ticket was convinced that all of the networks were against them, whereas now in 1968 it seems that many of the opposite party feel the networks have been doing them damage.

I don't know whether either of these charges is absolutely correct. I do know this, I have no vendetta against the networks for anything that happened in 1964. In fact, I think my role at that time was somewhat of a peacemaker between the candidate and the networks at times because of things that happened.

Senator PEARSON. I think the role of peacemaker may continue to be yours. I thank you.

Senator PASTORE. Šenator Magnuson.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions. One comes to my mind, though, as long as you have gone back to political campaigns, I wonder if the nominee has any opinion about the great number of radio broadcasts which are paid for, usually on the smaller radio stations particularly in the West, Middle West, and other places, that advocate a certain ideology? I might as well be frank. The far Right crowd gets on the air and severely abuses certain other people that may disagree with them.

I am not questioning the integrity of their viewpoints. Their programs are paid for and there is little chance for anyone to answer that sort of thing. I think you know the type of broadcast I mean. I am wondering if you have any opinions as to the FCC's personal attack rules?

Now there is a libel law, I understand that. But you run into countless foundations and legal maizes where you can't get at it. I think you know the people I am talking about.

Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir, Senator, I think I probably do.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't suggest you may agree with them, but I think you know who they are.

Mr. BURCH. It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that these broadcasts are subject to the fairness doctrine under the FCC, and if a person were personally attacked, that station was under an obligation to allow him an opportunity to respond. Frankly, I thought that is what the Red Lion Case was dispositive of.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be true, but the trouble with stations today, I think one of the problems is knowing when such broadcasts are made. They claim it is too costly to keep a tape, particularly a smaller radio station struggling along financially. They merely have a log that so and so had 10 minutes on that station on a given day. So there is no way to go back, and, unless the station is monitored and the person who is going to be attacked, say he is a political figure and is leading a movement for some cause he believes in, he has a difficult time catching up with the broadcast.

So your libel suit becomes pretty much of a difficult thing. Now, you might get a few people to sign affidavits that this is what they heard, but the other crowd can get as many to sign affidavits saying that is not what I understood he said.

There is a growing feeling all over the country on this point. It doesn't involve TV too much, but it involves some smaller radio stations that naturally want to sell their time, they have to. And this is a most difficult problem. I hope you take a look at this problem when you get down to the FCC, especially as to some requirement for keeping better records of what is broadcast, particularly of talk programs and paid political programs.

Mr. BURCH. I will, Senator. I was not aware the logs were that deficient.

The CHAIRMAN. As you point out, it works both ways. We have no monopoly on it, the Democrats or the Republicans. It can work both ways. They don't become a free form. They become someone who just wants to put a tire ad on or something else.

I hope you will take a look at it. It is a real problem of how far the legal authorization goes.

Mr. BURCH. I will be delighted to take a look at it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Nevada and I know about these stations. They seem to be more prominent in the West than anyplace else, I don't know why. Arizona should know about that.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Griffin.

Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burch, the only criticism of your nomination of which I am aware appears in an editorial of the New York Times, dated September 2, 1969, which only indicates to me that not only can the networks sometimes get off base, so does the New York Times on occasion.

I read with great interest a letter in response to that editorial, written by the former Chairman of the FCC, Mr. Minow. If that letter hasn't been placed in the record of the hearings, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the letter be placed in the record.

Senator PASTORE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Minow's letter is excellent. For such a letter to be written by a former Chairman of the FCC it is certainly a tribute to you.

I wish you well Mr. Burch, in your new and challenging responsibilities.

Mr. BURCH. Thank you very much.

Senator PASTORE. Mr. Cannon has another question.

Senator CANNON. Certainly in your position you were involved in the problem of high cost of campaigns.

Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. As you are aware, there has been legislation introduced and a great deal of conversations and talking and considerations about the question as to whether or not campaign time should be made available to the national candidates, either on a free basis or on a reduced-rate basis, because of this very great problem of expensive campaigns.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr. BURCH. Senator Cannon, I was a member of a commission which was set up by the 20th Century Fund of New York, of which Mr. Minow was the chairman, and the other members were Alexander Heard, chancellor of Vanderbilt University, Bob Price; an investment man in New York, formerly Mayor Lindsay's deputy; and Tommy Corcoran, a long-time attorney in Washington, an adviser to President Roosevelt and others.

We approached it only pertaining to the President and Vice President of major parties, although we did make definitions of minor parties. There is no one answer to this problem. There are numerous ways of approaching it.

This commission approached it on the basis that, one, the type of television that has been used in the past by the national candidates has not necessarily involved the electorate as to the qualifications of the candidates.

Two, it was terribly expensive and it became more and more a utilization of spot commercials, which are more expensive, as you know, than larger blocks of time.

We also approached the idea that campaigns were expensive because there was a great deal of hoopla that was possibly not necessary, a great deal of traveling from coast to coast in large airplanes, with entourages of press and others, and little of this got to the voter.

So we made a recommendation that the major candidates of each party receive six 30-minute television shows in the 8 weeks prior to the election, and that these programs be simultaneously telecast over the television networks, all three of them.

I must confess that that particular aspect of this gave us a great deal of difficulty, as to whether or not this is an infringement upon the rights of the person who wants to watch "Bonanza," say, or whatever.

The conclusion was we still give them the right to vote with their feet. They can always go up and turn the television set off. They are not obligated to watch it. It seems a rather small price to pay for the Government we have in this country. Because I do feel that if campaigns were run that way, the candidates would be obligated to make meaningful statements on television, which could be helpful to the electorate, much more so than the pattern that has developed. We suggested the Federal Government pay the networks at onehalf of their lowest commercial rate. That also is a problem, because there have been suggestions, for example, that the networks pay a grazing fee for using the airways, and provide this time for nothing. Personally, I have always felt the major parties at least could afford to buy the time themselves, as far as that is concerned, if they could

ever get a simulcast, which they can't get, absent some action by the Government.

The compromise, or the ultimate decision, was that the Government pay for the time for the simple reason that since the Government was imposing restrictions on the use of the time-namely, that it had to be substantially live-that it was fair for the Government to pay for it, and it did not amount to a great deal of money. That is one approach, Senator. I am aware of, I believe Senator Pearson's bill, and others, which deal with the problem of local candidates. I think it is a very difficult thing and I don't believe that necessarily the FCC is the one who will resolve it. I'm not sure it is in their bailiwick. But the Congress ought to pay a great deal of attention to it.

Senator PASTORE. In that connection, we have already assigned a hearing on these bills and on this report of the Twentieth Century Fund Commission for October 21, and we will go into the matter in some detail at that time.

Senator CANNON. I had one further comment. It is interesting to note you say there is some support for a so-called grazing fee. That indicates your western background, because we are very familiar with the grazing fees on public domain that are causing so much difficulty to our cattlemen and ranchers at the present time.

It is certainly a good point to consider; what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, something of that sort.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether someone has asked this question, but this committee has been vitally interested for some years in the establishment of what is now a public broadcasting corporation. Senator Pastore, we extended that in the Senate yesterday. That requires, of course, the complete cooperation of the FCC.

How do you feel about that?

Mr. BURCH. Senator, I think that

The CHAIRMAN. In every respect. I mean your personal cooperation, legal cooperation, your official cooperation.

Mr. BURCH. Senator, I will give you my pledge that I will support it in every respect, personally as well as otherwise, because it seems to me to be the only alternative presently existing to network programing, and to the putting on the air of the things that people would not otherwise get.

I am particularly interested in some of the things that are supposed to be coming up on educational TV in the next few months in the children's area, which I understand will be quite innovative, and hopefully successful.

The CHAIRMAN. The second question, one of the serious problems before the FCC today-it doesn't deal with ideologies or anything, it deals with practical technological problems is the growth of our, economy, and the business and the use of land mobile radio srevices in which the spectrum is so crowded they can't comply with the many many-literally thousands-of legitimate requests.

This committee has found out that one of the reasons, right or wrong, is that the military have about, I think, a substantial piece of the spectrum. Whether they are using it all or not is pretty hard to find out. When we try to find out they put the classified stamp on it immediately.

I think probably one of the big jobs at FCC is to find out if there is an efficient use of the spectrum and to try to make room for literally thousands of people in our business and economic community-police, fire, and community services-who are clamoring for frequencies.

I know it is a problem for someone to stand up to the military, and actually find out just how important all of that portion is to their operations, but it must be done continuously.

Senator PASTORE. Mr. Magnuson, there is only one person who can do that, and that is the President of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. He is close to the President of the United States. Senator PASTORE. It is a funny thing when you get in there, it is a question of how close they become. We have a man who is supposed to be the agent of the President of the United States with reference to communications-I don't want to get into that too deeply, but as far as I know, he has never talked with the President since he was appointed, and he is in the White House, responsible for correlating all of these problems with relation to communications. He has never sat down once, and talked with the President. He just retired him, and I think he did it in frustration. One quit, one just retired.

I think that that has to be resolved. I have a handful of telegrams here from people who are interested in this mobile communications problem; I know it is a difficult problem. We can't resolve it today.

But I am going to get into it a little bit with Mr. Wells, because the complaints are leveled against him for some reason, I don't know why. Maybe because he was a broadcaster.

I hope both of you gentlemen will look at some of these sensitive problems. They are not easy of solution, I realize that. But somebody has to take the bull by the horns.

We have been trying on this committee for the last 15 years to get a policy on international communications. Here we are, talking about Comsat, Intelsat, talking about a domestic satellite.

Now Dr. Stanton comes along with a plan referred to in today's New York Times. These are problems that have to be met. Of course, I realize that there were recommendations made during the tenure of President Johnson and the chances are the new administration wants to take a new look at it. I think that is their prerogative. But I would hope they don't delay it to the point where we lose our leadership in this area. We were the first people to put up a communications satellite. We were the first to create Comsat and build up the consortium for Intelsat, and I hope we don't lose the leadership in this area. This is one of the big responsibilities down there.

I would hope you two gentlemen, if you are confirmed, that you will make this of primary interest, because these problems are very, very important. And this involves the leadership of America in international communications. That is big. That is big.

I hope we don't sweep that under the rug. I hope we get down to some policies very fast. I hope, as the gentleman just suggested, that you are very close to the President. I would hope you would whisper that in his ear.

Mr. Scott? Incidentally, there is another fellow who can do a lot of whispering. He is the new minority leader.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think you have adequately conveyed the fact that the chairman of this committee has a good deal of influence, too, and I am sure he will be heard in any quarter at any