fact that everybody knows it, and in a year or two it will probably be declared subversive, but in the meantime there they are.

Senator MONRONEY. But if they are on the Attorney General's list, then you can deny them time?

Mr. LEE. We, as a commission, can. The station, I believe, is required to announce before the candidate speaks that this organization is such and such and has been cited.

Senator MONRONEY. And he is still given time?

Mr. LEE. It is still discretionary. He is not prohibited.

Senator MONRONEY. But the station can deny it without involvement of themselves?

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Senator MONRONEY. One difficulty in election campaigns with refusing to carry the broadcast of either presidential candidate, if a station denied to either presidential candidate the right to sell or buy time on the air but permitted the local political committees to buy the time for their own speaker but would still say we have not sold any ime to General Eisenhower and, therefore, we will not sell any time to Governor Stevenson, would that be in keeping with the rights of the Commission to intervene?

Mr. LEE. I frankly don't know on that situation.

Senator MONRONEY. Selling it to local committees and local people or to secondary speakers, but saying since General Eisenhower is not using the time, therefore Governor Stevenson is not going to be able to have time this week.

Mr. LEE. I believe, from a standpoint of equity, something should be done. As to what the law or our rules say on that, I don't know. We are going to go into some discussions in connection with the next campaign. I presume that sort of thing will come up.

Senator JOHNSON. If the Senator will permit me to interrupt. Senator MONRONEY. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON. A great many radio stations make it a practice of selling political time or time for political purposes and they sell it on the basis of first come, first in right. That is, you go in and buy the time and it is yours, and someone else cannot buy it if you have bought it because the time is very much limited. If one candidate goes in and buys time, the radio station is not under obligation to take that purchased time away from him and sell it to someone else. That is a common practice. Congress has been dealing with this problem of political broadcasts a long time and they have never been able to agree among themselves on what to do.

We have had numerous bills up here to try to clarify it and see that there might be equity as between the parties and between the candidates, but we do not come up with anything.

The Commission does have authority and I think, contrary to your reply to Senator Monroney, the Commission does have the power of revocation of rights. It has the power of refusal to renew the rights.

I want to say again here that that is the power of life and death over a station. The stations don't like that power to rest in the Commission, but it is there just the same. It is the power of life and death, so don't tell us you do not have any authority or power at all because you do have tremendous power and tremendous authority and the stations recognize that and will certainly listen to the Federal

Communications Commission whenever it speaks to them along the line of policy.

Senator PASTORE. I am a little confused now. Who is right? Is it true that once one candidate buys a certain amount of time, the station is compelled by rule to give the same amount of time to the opposition?

Mr. LEE. If they can pay for it. That is my understanding.

Senator JOHNSON. My understanding is that if the station gives free time to a candidate, then they are compelled, under the law, to give free time to the opponent. If they sell time to a candidate and he comes in and buys time on Tuesday and pays for it, then the opposing candidate cannot come in there on a Saturday night and demand that he have equal time or the best time that the radio has to sell.

For instance, they might think that 8 o'clock in the evening is a very valuable time. Now the fellow who gets there first and buys it and pays for it, it belongs to him and it is his property and the station cannot sell that to somebody else.

But if they give the time in the way of a sustaining program, any station in that case is compelled to give equal time and equal facilities to the opposition, and that is the difference between free time and sponsored or paid-for time.

The CHAIRMAN. It might be well to read section 315 (a) of the law, which is as follows:

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.

(b) The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station for any of the purposes set forth in this section shall not exceed the charges made for comparable use of such station for other purposes.

(c) The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

Senator PASTORE. Section (b) strongly indicates that it is paid-for time.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing that indicates as to whether it is paid for or not paid for. But if it charges the one, it must be charged to the other.

Senator SMATHERS. Do you think it is proper for radio and television stations to raise their costs to men who run for office, raise the costs over those which they charge commercially?

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law, they cannot do that.

Senator JOHNSON. They do do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are faults of ours if we let them get away with it.

Mr. LEE. My answer is "No."

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further question? Is there anyone in the audience who has any testimony he wishes to give in this matter?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES KRESS

Mr. KRESS. My name is Charles Kress. I live in Binghamton, N. Y. I am the former mayor of Binghamton. I am a consulting engineer. At the last session of Congress, I was a volunteer consultant on the

House appropriations investigating staff and as a patriotic contribution, I gave my services to the Government for 6 months without pay. In that capacity, I had a great opportunity to observe Mr. Lee's integrity and his ability and his great public interest. He was then a candidate for the office of Assistant Comptroller General and I took it upon myself to try to line up some support and I talked to a great number of people on his behalf.

It was with great surprise and amazement that I learned subsequently that his appointment to the Federal Communications Commission had been made.

I knew that Columbus got east by sailing west, but I never knew you could get on the Federal Communications Commission by running for Assistant Comptroller General.

I thought the committee would be interested in my opinion that his appointment to the Federal Communications Commission was certainly no schemed or devised plan. It was just a ricochet romance, I think. [Laughter.] I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We have some new terms anyway. Thank you very much. Is there anything else? If not, the meeting will be closed and I wish to call for an executive session. Will the members remain for a moment.

I want to thank you very much for your testimony and it certainly showed a comprehensive grasp of the problems of the Commission after the short time you have been down there.

Mr. LEE. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. (Whereupon, at 12:31 p. m., the committee adjourned.)

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 16, 1954.

Re appointment of Robert E. Lee as member of Federal Communications Commissions.

Hon. JOHN BRICKER,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: It is my understanding that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is now considering the nomination of Robert E. Lee to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission. I oppose confirmation of this nomination.

I am a member of the bar of the District of Columbia and the State of Texas, admitted to practice before the Federal Communications Commission as well as many other Government agencies and courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. I oppose Mr. Lee's confirmation for the following reasons:

(1) Mr. Lee has several times publicly admitted that he is entirely ignorant in the field of Federal communications law and without qualifications by experience or training to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission.

(2) At one time prior to his appointment to the Commission, Mr. Lee acted as moderator on a television program known as Facts Forum. This program was established under the financial sponsorship of H. L. Hunt, of Texas, a wealthy oilman holding primitive political opinions. Mr. Hunt is known to be a substantial backer of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The alleged anti-Semitic, antiracial and anti-American views of Mr. Hunt have recently been the subject of a newspaper report in a series of articles in the Providence Journal, a condensed version of which was recently printed in the press section of Time Magazine. Several applicants for television construction permits have projected the use of the Facts Forum program as a type of public discussion program when actually it is thinly disguised political propaganda setup. I believe Mr. Lee should be questioned regarding his association with Mr. Hunt and Facts Forum and his views developed on the record as to the adequacy of such a program as a public discussion program from a point of view of Federal communications law.

The involvement of Mr. Lee and his wife in the Maryland senatorial election of 1950 is well known to the Senate as a result of the report of the Senate com

mittee which investigated that election. I question the standards of public interest which Mr. Lee will bring to the Federal Communications Commission in the light of his conduct in the Maryland election. A total of $27,100 of contributions to the Maryland campaign were not reported as required by Maryland law. Of this sum, at least $5,000 represented money which Mr. Lee personally received from a Mr. Bentley in Senator McCarthy's office in the form of a check. As a former member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Mr. Lee should have been especially careful in the handling of campaign funds. He is certainly chargeable with knowledge of how those funds should have been handled.

For the reasons I have just set forth, I oppose the confirmation of Mr. Lee's nomination and hope that the committee will hold public hearings. In such event, I would be happy to appear as a witness in opposition to confirmation. Very truly yours,

WARREN WOODS,
Attorney at Law.

Senator Monroney submitted the following newspaper article:

[From the New York Times, January 17, 1954]

FCC APPOINTMENT-SELECTION OF ROBERT E. LEE TO SERVE ON LICENSING BODY IS DISCUSSED

(By Jack Gould)

With the opening of Congress, the appointment of Robert E. Lee to the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to come before the Senate for confirmation. Advance reports are that the appointment may stir up as much controversy as any made by the Eisenhower administration. On a number of different grounds there should be a full hearing.

In its selection of Mr. Lee the administration is continuing a practice with regard to the FCC that must be regretted. This is the assumption that membership on the Commission can be regarded as a reward for the politically deserving individual without regard to previous experience in the complex field of communications.

So far as the record shows, Mr. Lee's sole experience with broadcasting was as moderator with a discussion show presented by Facts Forum, an organization reputedly financed by H. L. Hunt, the Texas oilman of rather pronounced political views.

Immediately prior to his appointment last summer to the FCC Mr. Lee was director of surveys and investigations of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. He served in the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 8 years both as a special agent in several cities and later as administrative assistant to the director in charge of fiscal matters.

The party affiliation of a new FCC appointee is not open to debate; it should go to a Republican.

But within the ranks of the Republican Party there undoubtedly must be many individuals better qualified than Mr. Lee. The FCC post should require a familiarity with engineering matters, which too few of the Commissioners really have. In practice considerable knowledge of law is essential. In addition. there is a need for a broad understanding of all the sociological, economic, and educational implications inherent in the development of the media of communications.

Under the best of circumstances the FCC commissionership is a man-sized task. To award the position to an individual lacking in the necessary experience is not the wisest solution.

But in Mr. Lee's case there are additional complicating factors.

At the moment the main responsibility of the FCC is handing out television licenses. Many permits literally can be worth millions of dollars.

The very minimum requirement would seem to be that an FCC commissioner. who must do the picking and choosing among applicants, be free from political controversy. Mr. Lee happens to be identified closely with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, probably as controversial a figure as there is today.

It is no reflection on Mr. Lee to suggest that the Senator's forays into different departments of the Government leaves one most uneasy. The thought that Mr. McCarthy's influence even remotely might extend to the body which has supervisory authority over the country's communications facilities is anything but reassuring.

POLITICS

When Senator McCarthy recently demanded-and received-equal time on the television networks to answer the address of former President Harry S. Truman on the Henry Dexter White case, he hinted that he might press for an FCC investigation if he were turned down. The network complied.

Maybe it was only in the broadcaster's mind that Mr. Lee would be the instrumentality for such an investigation, but the thought nonetheless clearly existed. On the political front alone Senate Democrats have said they wanted to look into Mr. Lee's association with Senator McCarthy during the latter's role in defeating Democratic Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland. This was during the 1950 campaign.

The merits of the political pros and cons, however, would seem incidental in the case of an FCC appointment. No one expects an FCC commissioner to be a political eunuch, but the Commission as a whole must be kept out of the rough and tumble of politics as far as humanly possible. Mr. Lee's appointment does not appear to serve that end.