know that. If it wasn't for the subsides by the Government, they would have to close shop.

Now, you have gone from 100 to 233 stations, and you cut down the money, shortened the authorization period-how can the stations do things that you would like to see done?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. On the issue Senator Stevens was discussing, I think it is very important to realize that even a little bit of money goes a long way for some of these stations, particularly the smaller ones. There are ways of doing programing that is very interesting, very important to a community, for production costs of $1,000 to $2,000 an hour. That would be sneezed at in New York City or in Hollywood, but nonetheless it can be very valuable local programing.

I think it is important to realize that in addition to considering the size of the total pie, we consider how it is allocated, because those stations need that money.

Senator STEVENS. I think you are absolutely right, and as a matter of fact I call my colleagues' attention to the fact that the cut was made when Congress didn't pass the budget. We are still operating on a continuing resolution, as I understand it, for public broadcasting, and there is every indication we will continue to do so through the balance of this year.

So the question of how much the administration has requested for the balance of this fiscal year is really immaterial. I don't know of any way apart from a supplemental, and if the chairman would assist with a supplemental, I would support it. But I don't want to see this division which puts almost 50 percent of public broadcasting into the area that has the most television. It is the rural areas of the country that don't have public broadcasting, don't have the ability to support local programing in a public sense, which needs this assistance.

We could take $300,000 in a rural community in Alaska and have a lasting year-round program in the public service area. You put $300,000 into one of these New York programs and you got 30 minutes. Senator PASTORE. But the administration is against public affairs. Senator STEVENS. No, the administration, it seems to me, is against this big-name programing through the public broadcasting system when it should be going through the commercial system.

Senator PASTORE. Like "Sesame Street"? "The Advocates"? Senator STEVENS. "The Advocates" I happened to appear on, and I think it is very good.

Incidentally, we don't get paid. That is not a costly program. You can put that on very inexpensively. But the problem is the allocation of this money. It seems to me that because they are so dependent upon the population centers, the public broadcasting system has responded to this demand for competition, and I think the networks have enough competition.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I think it is important in that light, too. Senator, to recognize that public television was conceived as an alternative kind of medium. The need you are talking about is more acutely felt, I think, in the rural areas. That is a perfectly valid point.

It was never contemplated that the Federal role in funding this would become the major or dominant role. To the contrary, it was considered to be something that would be supplementary. The public television system was intended, as I understand it, to exist primarily

on funds from other sources, with the Federal contribution merely being an assist. That should not be forgotten either.

The public television people, to the extent they need more money, should be as concerned with raising their money from other sources in their communities as they are with getting more and more money from the Federal Government.

Senator STEVENS. I think the public system ought to be more interested in getting television in the areas where there is no television rather than putting on a fifth station in an area such as Washington.

It seems to me the obligation is to take the television experience out where it is not to begin with, and then to provide the programing and competition if they can afford to do it.

Let me ask you one more question-I have taken all my timeSenator PASTORE. The Senator can use all the time he wants. Senator STEVENS. I wanted to ask a question about the domestic satellites. I assume that is within the scope of this hearing. Senator PASTORE. It is.

Senator STEVENS. I have noted the FCC has required that Alaska and Hawaii be included in the rate structure by any company wishing to put up a satellite under the domestic program.

As I understand, that is an integrated rate structure. I would like to ask you whether there is any impediment to the companies that provide service to Alaska and Hawaii of giving us an integrated rate

structure now.

As I understand, they are willing to do it when we get satellite communications. Why can't they do it now?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. As I understand it, they can. As I further understand it, the FCC has directed the Bell System to look at this question and to recommend new integrated tariffs. The rationale is, of course, that with the advent of satellites for domestic communications, a separate tariff for Hawaii and Alaska would no longer be justified. We certainly support that, and I think the Commission, the telephone industry, and the common carriers, should move as promptly as possible to reflect that integrated rate structure and not wait for the satellites to actually get up there.

Senator STEVENS. I am pleased to hear that. We demonstrated right here in the Congress, the Senators and Congressmen from Hawaii and offshore areas and Alaska do not have the same communications between that those in what we call the south 48 do.

You can call anywhere in the United States supposedly for one fee after a certain time of night, but then if you look at the asterisk it says except for Hawaii and Alaska and the offshore areas. Either we will be one country as we are in the postage stamp system with the Postal Service, or we will have to find some way to give the offshore areas some assistance so that they can, in fact, be the equivalent of all the rest of the American States.

This is the one major impediment to taking television, national television into my State on a direct basis as the awareness of the integrated rate structure. I would welcome your assistance in that matter.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I agree wholeheartedly and we will certainly do whatever we can.

Senator STEVENS. Going back to the public affairs program area— and I do not want to extend that out more than we should, but what do

you see for the future of the public broadcasting system as far as its relationship to the networks?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I think the concept of public television, as an alternative to commercial television, is a sound one.

To be sure, commercial television in this country has its problems, but nonetheless, I think it is widely conceded that we have probably the best television of any country in the world.

Commercial television provides a great service and we should continue to rely on private enterprise broadcasting as our primary broadcasting system. Now, for a variety of reasons recognized by the Congress and by the FCC, there are certain types of programing that cannot command advertiser support, especially with the limited number of channels.

Such programs, however, should be available to the American television viewing public. Things like education, culture, and the arts are very important subjects. I think Sesame Street has shown how we can have interesting, vital, gripping television for children-television that is educational at the same time that it is entertaining.

We ought to be exploring more of that type of thing.

Senator STEVENS. Does the administration have any way to decrease support for public broadcasting?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. No; we do not intend that at all. We have steadily increased the funding for public broadcasting. The funds distributed through the HEW educational broadcasting facilities program, which provides money for construction of new broadcast facilities, cameras, tape recorders and the like, have been increased. In fact, in the President's budget, although many things were cut in the HEW budget, that item was not cut. That was held at $13 million.

Senator STEVENS. With the chairman's permission. I would like to place in the record at this point a request for appropriations over the years since the public broadcasting system has come in.

Senator PASTORE. We have it right here.

Senator STEVENS. All right.

Senator PASTORE. We will put it in the record without objection. (The document referred to follows:)

Now, you say the reason for the 1974 request reducing it to $35 million was a recognition of the situation that we are ending the balance of year at a current level.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is right.

Senator STEVENS. Yet we will start up in July at the $45 million level.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. In other words, you could not spend $10 million, say, if we did get a bill out of here by April or first of May in the 212 months available. It would be unwise to spend $10 million and cut back down to a $45 million dollar level, is that correct?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is basically right. The funds would carry into the next fiscal year, but the practical effect would be that for the fiscal year 1974, the Corporation would have funding of $55 million, and we just thought that it was not wise to have the growth going at that rate.

Senator PASTORE. For the life of me, I cannot see why you keep resisting the 2-year authorization. The appropriation could still be done on a yearly basis. It is only the fortification that the Corporation needs on this long lead time that is necessary.

We would all be better off for it. Admitting the fact there are faults that have to be cured but like everything else, this is a new venture so to speak. And it has to go through a trial period. There is no question about that.

But you cannot suffocate it with less money by cutting down the authorization period. I do not see why this administration is so much opposed to it when the testimony before this committee both Republican and Democrat members of the Corporation have been that a two year authorization is necessary.

They have justified that in the record. We are not talking about appropriation; we are talking about authorization. I hope the President next time will sign a 2-year authorization bill. We have passed the bill and he has vetoed it. That is the reason for it. I am not saying that he may be alone on that. The fact remains he did veto the authorization for 2 years.

He did it on your recommendation, so I am pleading to you today that you give it a good look and talk with the members of that Corporation. Because I think that is where your fault lies. If we are going to expect them to do a good job, they need a little more time. And you understand these things. It ought to be done.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the concept that there ought to be longer range funding. But I think there is more involved here than just the planning horizons of the Corporation. Senator PASTORE. I know what it was, Sandy Vanocur and so on. I know what started all this. It is politics.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. We think there are

Senator PASTORE. Politics, that is what it was.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. We think there are important issues the Congress ought to address in this area, and until this is done we think annual authorization would be a healthy matter.

Senator STEVENS. I would call your attention to the fact that we have an opportunity to put a 2-year authorization in and take it out of the political year. I would like to support increased funding for the public broadcasting on a 2-year basis and take it out of that election year complex.

I would urge the administration to take a look at it from that point of view. If the authorization would expire in a nonelection year, we

would have a lot more sanity about the way we face the problems of public broadcasting. I would urge you to take another look at the matter to see if we could not increase for balance of this fiscal year so we would in fact be spending for the balance of this fiscal year at the annual $45 million rate.

I do not know what that would be, but it would seem to me we could start up that $45 million rate May 1 or April 15, whenever we can get the bill through, if we can. I would urge we take this thing out of this bill-that is the thing that causes so much trouble-and fund it without regard to that other budget. It gets caught up in the HEW fight and it does not belong there. It has nothing to do with HEW and it is just an appendage to a bill that seems to be in continual controversy between the executive branch and the Congress.

I think we ought to find some way to lump it in with something else. Why don't you put it in with some of the independent agencies. Why should it be hooked on to HEW. It has no more sense being there than if it were an appendage to the FCC budget.

Would you take a look at that and see if there is not a way we can take it away from this area of veto conflict?

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator BAKER. Could I ask unanimous consent that three questions I have here dealing with copyright legislation, UHF broadcasting and radio reregulation be submitted for the record. I wonder if you would supply answers, Dr. Whitehead?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I would be pleased to.

(The questions and answers referred to follow :)

SENATOR BAKER-RE-REGULATION OF RADIO

In December 1971 your office issued a staff research paper and released a letter you had written to Dean Burch recommending the development of a pilot program to test the feasibility of substantial de-regulation of radio. On February 8, 1973 I introduced a Joint Resolution, S.J. Res. 60, calling on the FCC to establish a project that would build on the FCC's previous actions and further revise the regulatory framework for broadcasters with particular emphasis on small market radio. Are you familiar with S.J. Res. 60, and if so, what is your position on it?

Answer. I am familiar with S.J. Res. 60, which I believe is an excellent means of giving further emphasis to the FCC's ongoing project of radio deregulation. I support it fully.

As you know, I proposed a review of radio regulation well over a year ago. Subsequently, the FCC, through a committee chaired by Commissioner Wiley, started to review its rules and has already made substantial progress. Your Joint Resolution not only provides a clear statement of congressional intent on the matter of radio deregulation, but shows that the Congress, FCC, and the Executive Branch can work as partners to introduce new concepts into communications policy and to make government regulation responsive to changing needs.

UHF

Dr. Whitehead, it is increasingly evident that our society benefits greatly from local participation in our national communications system. It is equally clear that local participation, in the form of more public access, greater sensitivity to community interests and needs, and increased local ownership and training opoprtunities means a stronger national communications system. For these reasons I have been studying ways to encourage development of low-cost UHF television broadcast facilities. (1) Do you think there is a need for greater development of the UHF spectrum? (2) Would your office be willing to undertake a study of the feasibility of developing such a system which might take the form of encouraging equipment manufacturers to design and produce and package relative low cost UHF facilities or using translators with greater local origination?