Mr. BYSTROM. No, that was for an existing station. It cannot be more than 50 percent for a new station. So an existing station has the opportunity to receive somewhat larger Federal grants.

Mr. THOMAS. Are there any questions, gentlemen!

Mr. BOLAND. No more than $1 million is to be expended in any one State of the $32 million; is that right?

Mr. BYSTROM. That is correct.

LIMITATION BY STATE

Mr. BOLAND. We will put in the record the table on page 18. (The page follows:)

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FACILITIES

Table of temporary maximum limitation by State

Amount State or possession-Con.

State or possession:

Alabama-

Alaska

Arizona__.

Arkansas-

Amount

$544, 314

1, 000, 000

Nevada

California.

1, 000, 000

New York_

Connecticut_

1, 000, 000

680, 404

Mr. BOLAND. I imagine the demand in some larger States must be a lot more than that. What would the demand run in some of the States like New York, for instance? How many ETV stations have actually applied for assistance under this act?

Mr. NESTINGEN. In New York, there are four educational TV stations in existence. Construction permits are now being considered on nine stations. Construction permits have been granted on nine stations. Channels have been reserved in addition. There is some overlapping of these figures. There are four in existence, nine construction permits have been granted, a couple more channels reserved. Mr. BYSTROM. New York has a request in for 17 additional channels to be reserved for educational television.

Mr. BOLAND. Will all these channels be looking for grants under this act?

Mr. BYSTROM. They will have to determine it themselves.

Mr. BOLAND. With the limitation of $1 million, if all the 17 are granted in New York, they will not get much out of this program. Mr. BYSTROM. They are looking ahead to a 5- to 7-year program. Mr. BOLAND. If all ETV channels were assigned and licenses granted, New York would get relatively nothing if all 17 were to be constructed under this program. You are giving $1 million to New York.

Mr. HUGHES. That is the statutory limitation.

Mr. BOLAND. I do not know why New York, with applications for 17 stations, ought to be limited to $1 million and South Dakota also a million dollars. I understand it is the law.

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION STATION OPERATING COSTS

Mr. THOMAS. What about the stations' operating costs? It takes money to operate. The existing stations now can hardly get along. Mr. NESTINGEN. We visualize increased earnings.

Mr. THOMAS. Earnings depend on audience for which advertisers will pay.

Mr. NESTINGEN. There is no advertising under this act.

Mr. THOMAS. How are they going to meet this operating bill? Mr. NESTINGEN. State appropriations or by local appropriations, or private contributions.

Mr. THOMAS. That is a big gap on the program. You are building stations, but how are you going to operate them? That is what the trouble is in other categories. They will have to get some source of income.

Mr. NESTINGEN. The Ford Foundation, for example, is very interested.

Mr. THOMAS. What is your thinking on it? You are bound to have done some thinking. You do not come in here with a program that is going to fall flat on its face after you get these stations built. They have to have money to operate.

Do you intend to follow up with an operation grant?

Mr. NESTINGEN. It is a requirement that we do not participate in grants for operation, but as far as HEW is concerned, there is the requirement that we assure ability for continued operation of the stations.

Mr. THOMAS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. THOMAS. Are there any further questions?

USE OF TELEVISION FACILITIES

Mr. Bow. In the educational television field, what percentage of these will be in the scholastic field? To what extent do you think the schools will be using it?

Mr. NESTINGEN. A very high percentage. I do not know that we have figures that show the percentage on that, but a very high percentage.

Mr. Bow. As I understand this program, it is both for schools and for general viewing.

Mr. NESTINGEN. It can be for the general public as well.

Mr. Bow. What are your hours of broadcasting? Do you know yet when you will be broadcasting?

Mr. NESTINGEN. It depends on the individual situation.

Mr. Bow. It depends on the individual applicant and the schools. You have indicated that you hope that when this program is completed under the authorization that you now have, you will be reaching about 90 percent of the population of the country.

Mr. NESTINGEN. I hesitate to say it, but I would be hopeful we could.

Mr. Bow. I think you already said that in the record.

Mr. NESTINGEN. I used the figure 80 to 90 percent. I would like to put it this way. I am hopeful of reaching that percentage of the population but I cannot assure it.

Mr. Bow. The Chairman has raised some very pertinent questions here. That is: How are you going to finance it in the future? This is a 5-year program. You undoubtedly will use that up very easily in the period of 5 years. How do you expect to have this program of educational television financed after the 5 years?

Mr. NESTINGEN. This is a construction program alone, not an operational program. Continuing operation would be on the basis of local or State sources of money.

Mr. Bow. Do you have any indication by the States as to how much money they will have for operation of these programs?

Mr. NESTINGEN. One of the requirements in the successful HEW grant is the furnishing of satisfactory proof of ability to continue financing on the operation as well as meeting the share of their expense of construction.

Mr. Bow. That is one of your rules. My question is: Do you have it?

Mr. NESTINGEN. Do we have a showing?

Mr. Bow. Yes.

Mr. NESTINGEN. We will have a showing, yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. But do you have a showing now by States as to how much money they are willing to invest in the future in educational television out of their own tax funds?

Mr. NESTINGEN. We have statements on file on which we can give you the figure of the amount that we will have to meet from our share as compared to the share they have available.

Mr. Bow. That is for construction?

Mr. NESTINGEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. I am talking now about after they are constructed and are in operation. Do you have any assurance that after we have used these construction funds, these television stations will be continued and operated from the tax funds of the localities in which they are being constructed?

Mr. NESTINGEN. Information received to date does not show that figure.

Mr. BYSTROM. We have no applications.

Mr. NESTINGEN. These are inquiries.

Mr. KELLY. We have information on their needs and evidence of their degree of readiness, but we have not seen fit to ask anybody to file formal application with us until funds are available. The applicants must show their ability to operate the station, but we do not

yet have applications. We have readied ourselves to request them as soon as the Congress makes funds available.

FEDERAL INFLUENCE ON OPERATION OF EDUCATIONAL STATIONS

Mr. Bow. Let me make this observation. This is what gives me great concern in this program. That is, after you get these constructed and they are in operation, then the question will come: Who is going to pay the bill? You go back to the local schools and the shcool boards to get them to pay it.

Most of those people now are taxed up to the hilt and real estate will not carry any more tax funds for this kind of education. There will be no funds to operate.

You, yourselves, are now asking for Federal aid to education because some of these areas are in such a position that they cannot maintain their own schools. I have a great fear that what we are doing is helping to build up a network of television stations that eventually they will not have the local funds to operate. This is another program that will be coming back to the Federal Government to operate in the future.

My concern about that, if it then becomes a Federal operation, and you are covering 90 percent of the population, you then have the Federal Government operating in educational fields of television where a great segment of the population of the country certainly could be influenced by Government thought control.

Mr. NESTINGEN. May I answer it this way, by way of reply. I was mayor of a city for 5 years. I would have appreciated very much the opportunity of educating a portion of that city, school population and adult population alike, through this device, compared to the much more expensive devices in the alternative. I would seize on this opportunity with some enthusiasm as an economical way to answer the problems I had as mayor and those problems are very real. Mr. THOMAS. You mean as a substitute for classrooms?

Mr. NESTINGEN. As a supplement, but not a substitute. I certainly would think that way.

Mr. KELLY. Also, we ought to note the educational assistance bill pending before the Congress does prevent the Federal Government from interfering with operations of the school systems, as does this bill; and even if this bill were to be extended to the subsidy of operations, it seems to me that the action of the Congress in the whole field of education and the action of the executive branch through every administration would indicate that it would prohibit the Federal thought control of the educational process.

Mr. Bow. Wherever you have Federal funds, regardless of what Congress writes into the bill, you will have some Federal control in operation. You cannot get away from it.

Mr. NESTINGEN. There will be no control of curriculum or how they set it up.

Mr. Bow. You are saying that, as of today, but I am saying when the day comes that the Federal Government has to pick up the checks, that will be the case. You have in this program application for employees for programing and checking the programs. You have pretty much surveillance over this under the present law and regulations as set forth in your justifications.

Mr. NESTINGEN. We do not have control over existing programs. Mr. Bow. Under your grants, your assurance by grantees-are not some of those assurances by grantees things you can keep under surveillance?

Mr. NESTINGEN. Not curriculum. In the case of NDEA we have grants in a particular field.

Mr. Bow. Once you get the Federal Government's hand in certain things, control is there, or soon will be there. That is all, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Langen?

COVERAGE BY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION

Mr. LANGEN. What attention is going to be given to the pattern this educational television will cover? I am thinking now in terms of a particular State and number of stations that will be located in a State. How many blank areas are there going to be and how much overlapping is there going to be of the stations and what attention is directed to that problem?

Mr. NESTINGEN. I am not sure I am clear, but in the spread of the stations to assure maximum coverage and a minimum of overlap in the sense of broadcast service, is that what you mean?

Mr. LANGEN. Right.

Mr. NESTINGEN. There is a threefold requirement in the act to take into account distribution by population and take into consideration area and take into consideration a third factor, which is the prompt use of the educational television channels remaining available.

The FCC is the regulatory agency from the standpoint of issuance of permits. They will help to assure a minimum of overlapping in issuance of those permits.

We have a map laid out showing where ETV outlets have been allocated. If you would like to have that available, it indicates the thinking given in this direction.

Mr. LANGEN. I asked primarily because of the reference previously to a minimum of a million dollars to a particular State. I can see where a minimum of a million dollars to a particular State that is heavily populated can well give to that State pretty good coverage. By the same token, a smaller amount to another State that is more sparsely populated, but where you have the area, you may come up there with a pattern where only a very small portion of that State is being covered.

Mr. NESTINGEN. That is why the law itself says a maximum of a million dollars to any one State. Then administratively within that requirement we tentatively set the maximum for any one State which would receive less than a million dollars. In setting up that tentative maximum we took into account in equal parts the relative population of the State and the relative area so that we can try to cover all of the more sparsely settled areas and give them an equal opportunity

for consideration.

Mr. LANGEN. Is it true or not that this entire system is going to serve the schools as well as the general populace?

Mr. NESTINGEN. It can serve both.