Mr. HARRIS. Of course, the gentleman knows that no radio station or television can be on the air unless it has a permit from the Federal regulatory agency.

Mr. DAVIS. I know that. But I can recall back when they first went on the air, maybe in the early twenties or a year or two back of that, when they didn't have to get a permit from anybody to go on the air. They went on because it was a natural and inherent right to do that kind of business. It was only when the need for regulation appeared that Congress stepped in and enacted these laws for the purpose of regulation, but not for the purpose of giving life to the industry.

Chairman PRIEST. Are there further questions?

Mr. DOLLINGER. Judge, would I be correct in stating that you are for States rights?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, indeed, you would certainly be correct in stating that.

Mr. DOLLINGER. I should like to have you tell me whether this bill does not act contrary to States rights. Aren't you taking the rights away from the States and giving them to the Federal Government?

Mr. DAVIS. No, I would not say so. The Federal law against transporting a stolen automobile across State lines has not interfered with the State's right to prosecute automobile thieves.

Mr. DOLLINGER. How would you say it differs in that respect? You are regulating something which the State should in the first instance.

Mr. DAVIS. No; I don't think that this bill interferes with the right of the State to carry on under the amendment which repealed the prohibition amendment.

Mr. DOLLINGER. I have to differ with you on that, but I don't want to take any more time from the committee.

Chairman PRIEST. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Judge Davis, I have one question. I am looking at the penalty section of the act. This is in keeping with the questions that Mr. Harris asked you and probably expanding a little on that.

Have you given any consideration to the possibility of making one of the penalties the forfeiture of the license, if you are required to have a license to engage in businesses affected by this bill, or perhaps insofar as newspapers are concerned, the forfeiture of the second-class mail privileges?

Mr. DAVIS. No. Such thought as I had given to it, Mr. Rogers, has been to this effect. I think that a provision such as section 7 here is preferable to the other two which you mentioned.

Mr. ROGERS. The thing that is in my mind there is this. As you well appreciate, you have a lot of corporations involved in this situation, and when you get into that corporate structure, you run into a proposition where sometimes they can pay fines and continue to do something that is in violation of the law. Of course, you cannot imprison a corporation. The situation that I am thinking about is this: If such a bill as this passes, I think it certainly ought to be enforceable. I think it should contain provisions that would give the Government at least the authority to properly enforce it, because it would result in an individual being placed in jail, we will say, for a viola

tion, whereas a corporation could not be. The corporation would be fined.

Mr. DAVIS. Of course, there is that difficulty. I believe that this section 7 with the penalties provided there would certainly be worthwhile giving a trial.

Mr. ROGERS. Don't you think that if a corporation engaged in the television business or the radio broadcasting business should violate this law, they should forfeit the license under which they are operating?

Mr. DAVIS. I am not prepared this morning to recommend a change in the penalty provisions to that extent, Mr. Rogers. Frankly, I have not given that the thought I would like to give it before really reaching a conclusion on it.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, sir.

Chairman PRIEST. If there are no further questions, we thank you very much. You have permission to revise and extend your remarks, Judge Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PRIEST. The next witness is our colleague from Idaho, Mrs. Pfost. Mrs. Pfost we are happy to have you appear.

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACIE PFOST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. PrOST. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when I appeared before this committee in the 83d Congress in support of H. R. 1227, a bill which was similar to H. R. 4627, the one before the committee today, I stated that this legislation had brought forth a greater outpouring of mail from the residents of my district than any other measure considered since I came to Congress.

Today I can reiterate that statement-with hundred fold emphasis. Telegrams, letters, cards, and petitions supporting this legislation have continued to pour into my office both when Congress was in session and when it was not. And 99 percent of all of the communications I received have been 100 percent in favor of the bill.

In presenting my testimony, I will make no attempt to go into the legal problems that this resolution raises. That is the province of this very competent committee.

But I do feel that the steadily increasing amounts of liquor consumed in this country, and particularly the extent to which the large-scale TV and radio advertising of alcoholic beverages contributes to that upward trend, are very properly the subject of congressional concern. There is no question about the fact that since the repeal of prohibition, the consumption of alcoholic beverages in this country has been steadily, relentlessly climbing upwards. In 1934, 0.46 wine gallons of distilled spirits were consumed per capita; by 1954 the figure had grown to 1.18 per capita, and preliminary figures for 1955 indicate it climbed up again last year to reach 1.22 wine gallons. Consumption of all other alcoholic beverages is on the same upward trend.

It is estimated that 65 million Americans drink today. Last year the average adult spent approximately $93 for about 20 fifths of liquor. Of the 65 million Americans who drink, about 4 million are alcoholics and another 3 million are excessive drinkers.

Sums spent for alcoholic beverages are almost unbelievable. For example, in 1954 the American public spent three times as much for alcoholic beverages as for private education and research, or for religious and welfare activities. Medical costs and death expenses totaled only $3 billion more than expenditures for the Nation's alcoholic drinks.1

Here are the exact expenditures for these purposes: Private education and research, $2,605 million; religious and welfare activities, $3,202 million; medical care and death expenses, $11,756 million; alcoholic beverages, $8,830 million.

Obviously, if alcoholic beverage expenditures are so great, alcoholic advertising must be a big business. It is. In 1954, there were 19 companies selling liquor, and each one of them spent in excess of $1 million in advertising—and some a great deal more. The total spent was over $75 million. Eight manufacturers of alcoholic beverages were among the 100 top advertisers of the country.

I believe, therefore, it is safe to say that the rising trend in the consumption of alcoholic beverages in this country is certainly being abetted by the constant rat-a-tat-tat on the pleasures and glamour of drinking that is being dinned into the minds and ears of the public through liquor advertising. Radio and TV advertising of alcoholic beverages are particularly insidious because they are so personal-they come right into the living room of your home to describe the pleasures of drinking in the most enticing terms, and even to show you the foaming, frosted drink itself.

They make drinking seem not only attractive, but the correct and accepted thing. How could they help but mold the lives of our rising generation? We have proof every day of the extent to which adults are impressed by advertising. We eat, drink, dress, and think according to the way we are directed by advertising. How could we expect immature youth to be less impressionable?

Many people feel that any attempt to control the consumption of liquor is an abridgment of their personal freedom. They say that what they drink is their own business. But in modern society this simply is not true. The National Safety Council reports that 1 out of every 4 traffic fatalities is due to the use of alcoholic beverages. In 1954, reports from 22 States showed that in 24 out of 100 fatal accidents, a driver or a pedestrian had been drinking. In 1953, the figure was only about 18 out of every 100. So, as you gentlemen can see, the shocking picture is growing worse.

Not only does drunkenness take a terrific toll in lives and injuries, but it brings a staggering economic loss to the Nation. A public affairs committee summary of the costs of drunkenness puts this price tag on it: Medical care, $31 million; jail maintenance, $25 million; accidents, $89 million; crime, $188 million; wage losses, $432 million.

The Yale Center of Alcoholic Studies estimates that business and industry employ 1,650,000 full-fledged alcoholics whose out-of-control drinking keeps them off the job a total of 36 million workdays a year.2 Other costs, such as the addling of good brains, the neglect and abuse of children, and the disruption of families and friendships are borne

1 Survey of Current Business, June 1955, p. 19.

2 The Drunk: He's Management's Baby. Business Week, March 13, 1954, p. 103.

in large measure by those closely associated with the problem drinkers.' I am particularly worried about the fact that so many young people drink today, and that quite a few of them drink too much. In 1954 the Department of Justice compiled figures by age groups on arrests for drunkenness which show that in a number of cities of over 2,500 population one-seventh of those arrested were under 21. The number of arrests among teen-agers is particularly a subject for concern. Following are the figures: Under age 15, 394; 15, 557; 16, 1,414; 17, 2,273; 18, 4,446; 19, 5,402; 20, 5,788; and 21, 9,365.

To me the facts and figures that I have presented here today are truly frightening. And when you consider that liquor consumption is on the upswing-that each year there are more arrests for drunkenness, more fatal accidents caused by drunkenness, more heartache among the families of problem drinkers-it seems to me Congress should very well take a long look at what is happening, and judge whether it is within our province to try to control it.

In my opinion, H. R. 4627 is properly the subject for congressional consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Mrs, Pfost. If there are no questions, the next witness is our colleague, Mr. Budge, also from Idaho.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAMER H. BUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am sure you will recall that I appeared before you in the 83d Congress in support of the then pending bills which were introduced to prohibit the transportation in interstate advertising on alcoholic beverages. At that time I sponsored H. R. 8744 to amend title 18 of the United States Code making it a crime to televise advertising of pictures of persons pouring, drinking, or opening containers of alcoholic liquors. I regret that the Congress failed to take action on any of this legislation, and I call it again to your attention in the hope that something constructive will be approved by this session.

It may be entirely unrealistic to imagine that the complete goals of the present legislation before your committee may be achieved, but, I do not think it is unrealistic or impossible to achieve the objectives of the legislation which I have sponsored.

Since coming to Congress I have received literally hundreds of letters from responsible citizens objecting to the present advertising policies of the use of alcoholic privileges which is inclined, it seems to me, only to increase consumption in the use of the same. These individuals in my State who write me have done so out of the strong convictions which they have. They have done so on well-founded observation in their own communities. In spite of all the interest and concern of the public in regard to the widespread advertising of alcoholic beverages, I regret to say that the industries have failed to take the necessary action in keeping with these recommendations, and which I feel could be properly self-imposed if they were so inclined. However, in view of this lack of action by the industries,

Ellison, Jerome. July 1, 1955, p. 17. 74186-56

Help for the Alcoholic's Family, Saturday Evening Post, vol. 228,

-3

I strongly recommend that this committee take positive action. There is evidence on every hand which supports the contentions of the citizens who have written me in the past few weeks.

Interstate traffic and the advertisement and traffic of alcoholic beverages must bear part of the responsibility for the increased traffic accidents, increased juvenile delinquency, and other undesirable activities in our great Nation. The increased incident of these problems, I am sure, are not unrelated to the increasing widespread exposure of the youth of our Nation to the advertising and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

In conclusion I wish to thank this committee for the attention which it has given these matters and respectfully suggest that some constructive legislation be reported to the House for further consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Budge. Mr. BUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is our colleague from Kansas, Mr. Rees.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD H. REES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of submitting my views with respect to the proposed legislation that would prevent interstate transmission, by mail or otherwise, of newspapers, periodicals, newsreels, photographic films, or records advertising alcoholic beverages or soliciting orders therefor. Advertising by radio or television station is also prohibited.

This is an important measure. I hope the committee will see fit to approve it. The purpose of advertising is to increase sales. It appears then that among other things the question before this committee and before the Congress is whether it is in the public interest to increase sales of liquor. I believe it is conceded we are not dealing with an ordinary object of legitimate trade when we talk about the sale of intoxicating liquor. Congress and State legislatures have again and again recognized restrictive laws on the grounds that alcohol is a dangerous commodity. Every State, so far as I know, has laws and regulations providing that, if liquor is sold, it must be done under severe restrictions.

We have even recognized in some degree the necessity of controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages with respect to advertising. It has been the subject of some regulation, but not enough, by the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department. It has been the subject of regulation to some extent by the Federal Trade Commission. This indicates that there has been some recognition that the sale of intoxicating liquors should be controlled. In fact the sale of liquor is controlled in some degree in every State in the Union.

I don't know of anyone who really supports what is known as alcoholism. I know of on one who believes alcoholism is good for our people; however, it is admitted that its sale is on the increase. Much is being said that since it is a commodity that may be sold legally, then its advertisement should not be prohibited by law. The courts of the United States have consistently held that the operation of the liquor business is based solely upon privilege and not upon any natural right. This is because liquor is recognized as a source of disease,