Mr. NELSEN. I certainly want to thank Father Steiner for a very, fine statement.

very

I am sure he would join with me in the hope that we could find this 15-member board which will guide this corporation, that we could find 15 "Republicrats." Then maybe our problems would be over.

I think that the suggestion that both political parties be represented is motivated not by the tug of war between political parties, but because of the fact that the experience has been that one party checkmates the other from abuses.

I would further point out that Secretary Gardner, of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, did point out the need of proper policing to avoid misuse, but pointed out in his statement that supervision would be no better than the men who were put in charge of it.

This pretty much goes along with what you have said.

Our search is in trying to find the right kind of machinery to guard against abuse. I think your statement has been a very objective one and one that indicated a good deal of imagination on your part. I think you would be a very good teacher. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Father Steiner, I did enjoy your statement. I must say I agree with you that I would not be so much concerned about political affiliations of the corporation's membership, but, rather, their competency, as you say, honesty, integrity, and ideology.

I think those factors are much more important than whether a man calls himself either a Republican or Democrat. We are concerned with his honesty, integrity, and competency in trying to do the job.

As for financing, I think none of us is naive enough to think that once we get into this we are just going to settle and drop out of it after the first year, once Federal funds have been committed.

For instance, the first-year program is suggested to be financed with tax dollars. Yet there is a suggestion that this money simply be turned over to the corporation without any checking on them. In fact, it was suggested even the General Accounting Office should not check or ask any questions about the expenditures of that money.

I do not know that the Congress is in a position to simply turn over Federal funds, tax dollars, to a nongovernmental corporation without any right or obligation to find out how those tax dollars are used or spent.

What is your comment on that?

Reverend STEINER. I was interested in the discussion in the Senate, although I was not there personally. For example, on the one hand the point was being made that there would be complete freedom from any influence-I am not using the word control now, or interferenceon the part of the use of those funds by the corporation.

Then almost out of the same source the statement was made: Don't worry too much because, actually, Congress has to appropriate the money, and if it doesn't appropriate the money to the extent that its contribution is essential, then there is going to be-well, is this control? What I tried to say, Congressman, in my statement, and I repeat it here in a little different way, is whether it is the Government, the Con

gress of the United States, or whether it is a major foundation, I don't care what the source, it would be irresponsibility, in my judgment, that there would not be guidelines.

You have to send in a report. They have to be assured that you have carried out the provisions according to which you got the money.

What I find myself becoming a little impatient about is in so many cases, and this occurs in so much testimony, too, here or on any occasion, it is an old expression that we want our cake and yet we want to eat it.

I believe that, ideally, it would be better if we didn't have to use any Government money. Incidentally, I believe we could do a great deal more by ourselves, not without Government money.

When we started our station, channel 56 that I was a cofounder of, it was a UMF and there wasn't a single reception possibility in the whole area. It was all VHF.

When Dave Henry said, "If you don't want it supported by tax money, Father, all right, you go ahead.”

I said, "That is fair."

I went out personally and sat down with the boards, the top people, including the presidents, of Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, Burroughs Corp., and I raised $400,000.

I said, "All right, now we have a transmitter."

I am only saying this to indicate that I think to accomplish what we all want, there has to be, in addition to all the other sources of supply, Government money.

If there is Government money, just as whether it is a foundation's money, whatever it is, the responsible thing is that there be guidelines and that there be some kind of supervision.

I don't think I could vote substantial funds without that.

Mr. ROGERS. Or at least an accounting of how the money was spent. Reverend STEINER. That is what I mean. There should be guidelines and accounting.

Mr. ROGERS. Just to be sure that it is within the limits of the law. Reverend STEINER. May I say this, by the way, and I am not saying it because this is this side of the Capitol, but as I have heard so many people being concerned about who would have the say and who would have the control about the corporation, and the concern about Congress having any control, I wonder if there is any body of men in our American system that is closer to the people and understands them better than Congress.

The Congressman, more than anybody else, probably, better be honest, competent, and careful about his ideology, not about his political affiliation.

Frankly, and this is as a realist, a man who gets a budget really without any tax support, at the University of Detroit, and before that at another university for the last 30 years, I have had to get money from other than Government sources.

I have had to deal with hundreds and thousands of people. I am not afraid of you. I am not so concerned, certainly about the guidelines, as you put it, and then the accounting.

Mr. ROGERS. I think the Congress would have to have some accounting of Federal funds put into this. It has been interesting to see the

people who talk about Government control center their fear on Federal Government control. We haven't heard anyone concerned with State government control or county government control. Yet that has been existent in educational TV since it started up, in many areas. Of course, not in all, but in many areas where State funds have supported the educational TV.

I appreciate your testimony. It has been most helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Brotzman.

Mr. BROTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Father, I would just like to state that you have helped us a great deal relative to your analysis of this bill, and I think you have stated certain basic truths that were very good for all of us to hear.

I liked this one sentence particularly, and I think it sums up pretty well some of our apprehension, when you state, "This is earth, not heaven; people, even Americans, are men, not angels; even the highest dedication is not without some self-interest."

It states the proposition very well which causes us to be somewhat cautious, too, as we attempt to discharge our responsibility in this particular area.

I would like to thank you for your testimony.

Reverend STEINER. May I make this observation: You will notice that there hasn't been anything religious on the part of myself, and I am a Roman Catholic priest, of course. But you give me an opportunity to bring in one religious note in regard to that sentence. It is significant to me that God himself has said, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The implication is clear that even God, who created man, expects that there is going to be some self-interest. He didn't say, "Love your neighbor" and forget about yourself. This adds a religious note to my testimony.

Mr. BROTZMAN. Thank you, Father.

Mr. Moss. Father, you stated at the beginning that you were a cautious man. I would say your testimony represents both the testimony of a cautious man and a wise man. I thank you for it. I think it is most helpful to the members of the committee.

Thank you, sir.

Reverend STEINER. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. I would like at this time to ask unanimous consent to insert a chart in the record at the appropriate point. It is the fourth of a series supplied by HEW, to illustrate some of the safeguards recommended by the Carnegie Commission on ETV contained in the proposed legislation.

Is there any objection?

Hearing none, the chart will be placed into the record at the appropriate point. (See p. 474.)

Our next witness is Mr. Thomas F. Jones, president of the University of South Carolina, appearing for the National Association of State Universities.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. JONES, D. SC., CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LANDGRANT COLLEGES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, and honorable Members of Congress, I want to thank you, first, for the opportunity to appear before you today, to say the few things that I have to say.

I am Thomas F. Jones, president of the University of South Carolina, and I am appearing as the chairman of the Committee on Educational Telecommunications of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

There has been a long dream in this Nation, as, for example, stated by Christopher Gadsden, a South Carolina patriot of the revolutionary era, a dream of a national university.

He said in 1797:

The President had recommended a National University: It will tend to do what we want most, a complete union and general acquaintance with each other, throughout the United States.

I want to put before you the proposition that a properly and effectively financed public television system will be a new, great approach, possibly of a similar magnitude to that of the Morrill Act, the LandGrant Act, which has done so much to foster higher education in our Nation.

I would like to draw a comparison, if I may, sir, between the potential of television and the book which came into being on a mass basis in the middle of the 15th century.

TV is really quite comparable, but we have to realize that the book, until relatively recent times, was virtually proprietary to the upper classes of our society, not just because of cost, but because of the problem of literacy.

Public TV, because it appeals to the eyes which seems for every one to be literate and understanding, even though one may not have the use of words, may well outdistance the book as a great and powerful influence in man's progress and development.

I would like to bring before you some functions of importance that we should think of as we think of public TV, Mr. Chairman.

Our Nation must continue to be dedicated to cultural values, and at least a portion of our public communication, our public education, our public information effort must be systematically devoted to the development of cultural values so that we may be a Nation of culture as well as material means.

As prophesied by Mr. Gadsden, a national university or a national system of education of great strength can inform and unify our Nation. For example, Mr. Chairman, I would mention that our Government Printing Office publishes a large number of documents for the information of the general public, and these reach actually a very few people indeed.

There is needed a medium by which these can be brought more forcefully to the attention and at least summarized to areas where there is sufficient public to justify the existence of the documents.

One of the examples is that of the published records of hearings such as these which tend to get lost in the workaday affairs of Congress, but yet I believe these would be of great interest to the public, who could well be at least a little better informed of the way in which you work and the extent to which you give yourselves to your governmental service.

These days we are thinking in our Nation about building a society. Never before in the history of man has there been a society sufficiently affluent to think in terms of really building a society.

Generally, this activity (society building) has been neglected because we require a surplus of energy or a surplus of funds, these being essential identities, in order to think of building a society, as such.

We have made great progress in our Nation, of course, in public education, but now we are in a new phase. We must build a society worthy to lead the world. We must, for example, get the fine arts before a larger segment of the public.

If we are to preserve in our turbulent world, our turbulent Nation, those things of our culture which are worth preserving, we must share them with ever greater numbers. Of course, color television is going to help greatly in this because it adds a new dimension in the sending of messages and in communication.

I have more to say about building a society, and I want to mention the problem of reaching the underprivileged. I would say public television, for a number of reasons-one of the principal ones being lack of funds has not gone very far in this particular effort. This mission requires some real imagination.

By and large, man in his communication has thought of the problem of communicating with his peers, which means a man with something to communicate and another man with a reason to receive.

We haven't thought as much as we should about recruiting an audience or recruiting the listener from underprivileged cultures who will receive that which we would send. Actually, in communicating with the underprivileged, the first problem is to get the attention of the underprivileged man. Here you have to compete in public television with programs which have been developed and thought out to the ultimate by the commercial interest.

I don't wish to criticize those people in commercial programing. I think actually we must appreciate them, and to a considerable extent learn by their experience.

I would offer an example here of the kind of thing that is possible as we think of reaching the people in the underprivileged cultures in our efforts to develop them.

You, in effect, need to give them not lectures by college professors, social workers or doctors, but the kind of program that they would most want to see. Then, just as our commercial people are doing, you would educate them by inconvenience, you might say, by a five-minute break which, instead of being an advertisement, is a lecture on how to brush your teeth, or why you would take other hygienic precautions. By keeping close to the TV set, the watcher will not want to miss the next act of Superman, but he will sit there and get some of this needed information by "osmosis." But you have to get his attention first.