the House and Senate that will enable us, through public television and radio, to bring the American people closer to all of the workings of the legislative branch of government. Such reforms would be a mighty contribution to the future of our democratic structure.

I shall make some specific proposals later in my testimony, but first let me briefly describe the functions of CPB.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a nonprofit, nongovernment corporation that promotes and helps finance the development of noncommercial radio and television.

The Corporation was established by Congress in 1967. The Public Broadcasting Act was based on recommendations made by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television but also was enlarged to serve radio.

The Commission coined the name "public" to indicate that the system could and should be responsible to those needs of the American public which were not, or could not, be satisfied by commercial broadcasting.

Public broadcasting revolves around the local public broadcasting licensee. It is funded largely by State legislatures, universities, communities, foundations and contributions from the general public. Approximately 20 percent of the money spent on public broadcasting in the United States comes from the Federal Government.

CPB does not have any regulatory power over the local licensee. It does not produce programs but does acquire by grant or contract high quality television programs for distribution by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which the public stations, at their sole discretion and choice, may or may not decide to air at times selected by them. Most national programing is produced by public television

stations.

For the purposes of distribution, the Corporation funds the Public Broadcasting Service, which manages the interconnection between local television stations. PBS is a membership organization for public television stations that distributes and promotes programs. Together we are responsible for funding, scheduling, and distributing programs nationally through an interconnection system. PBS also serves 244 member stations.

Public radio is organized differently than public television. National Public Radio (NPR) was established as the national programing and interconnection service for noncommercial radio. Unlike PBS, NPR does produce programs. It also distributes programs and manages the interconnection of its 163 member stations. NPR is supported principally by CPB funds.

Public broadcasting's newest national organization is the Association of Public Radio Stations. APRS was established in 1973 by the country's public radio stations for the purpose of representing their interests.

Although these organizations bear varying names and missions, the point should be made that public television and public radio exist for only one purpose-to serve the varied interest of all the people of this country. Public broadcasting does not belong to any one of us. It belongs to all of us.

Congress has not made a cohesive and concerted effort to employ all available techniques to communicate with the American people. I

urge you to consider the unique capabilities of public broadcasting for this purpose.

The Congress has simply not permitted adequate access by the electronic media to its inner workings. While there are obvious merits to the conventional print media methods of communication, we must seek and eventually have additional mechanisms for providing information to the public regarding their government. Radio and television have the potential to bring new life and spirit to public affairs programing to a degree we never dreamed possible a few years ago. Public affairs programing is a vital ingredient of public radio and television.

We are in a period where confidence in the governmental process at all levels is at a low ebb. One of the major reasons for this is that as government has become more complicated it has also become more remote, and the citizenry has become less involved.

By allowing the public to virtually "sit in" on debates, hearings, and other facets of the legislative process, people can be motivated to participate in helping to make our Government function better. Perhaps if we have access to the material for the broadcast of indepth specials and documentaries some of the lost confidence can be restored. The great potential of public broadcasting is that it offers each citizen the opportunity to participate-even though vicariously-in the making of national legislative policy.

Public radio and public television also have the advantage of not being rigidly scheduled so that prime time offering of a full coverage event or a lengthy special on an important subject is possible. This flexibility is one of the greatest assets of public broadcasting-to bring important and timely matters to the public when they can watch and

listen.

The time has come for us, the communicators, and you, the legislators, to close the gap of misunderstanding between the public and its elected representatives.

Speaking at the Harvard University symposium last year, my colleague Hartford Gunn, president of the Public Broadcasting Service, appealed to Congress to permit television coverage of regular floor debates. He placed the responsibility on both the media and Congress for the failure of Congress to communicate with the people.

It is encouraging to see that these hearings have been called to explore some of the avenues that might be employed to improve the capability of Congress to reach American people with its views and decisions.

This subject matter ties precisely into what public broadcasting is trying to do in the area of public affairs programing. While we cannot resolve the question of competition between the executive and legislative branches over the issue of access to the media, our first goal is to provide a service to the public that permits the American electorate to better understand the institutional role of Congress. The first step is to get the public involved in an issue and thus in the congressional mechanism for deciding it The issues and points of view are the important. vehicle. A second goal is to provide a way for the viewer or listener to have an opportunity to see and hear the views of his elected representative on the issues.

I have said that public broadcasting is unique. It concentrates on reaching a special type of audience. It is free of the competitive pressures that are part of commercial broadcasting. Our survival is not based on mass audience ratings. Because we do not aim at the largest possible audience, public broadcasting has been able to reach many special audiences that otherwise would not be served. We believe we have been able to provide considerable leadership in coverage of public affairs events, and we want to improve our record. Our track record includes a major concentration on public affairs coverage by both television and radio.

Let me now refer to public television and its role in this area-what is our experience and what have we accomplished.

In this electronic age, television is the dominant information source. Statistics tell us that in excess of 25 million persons a week watch public television. Our most successful public affairs program to date was the prime-time coverage of the Watergate hearings. Public television's Watergate telecasts contributed an estimated 400 million home-hours of viewing to the total nationwide audience.

The Watergate coverage on both radio and television brought a sharpened public awareness of public broadcasting and its vast potential for the future.

National Public Radio has also pioneered in this area from its first day of operation in April 1971. Since that time, NPR has provided its 163 member stations with nearly 600 hours of live, unedited coverage of congressional hearings.

The radio medium is uniquely well suited to provide ongoing indepth coverage of the "congressional process." No other means of communication can provide the flexibility, air time, or immediacy of live radio on a continuous, day-to-day basis at a realistic cost and without significant interruption to the normal flow of other program services. The number of radio stations operating today is sufficient to offer the listener a wide range of choices including, in many areas of the country, stations that specialize in so-called "all talk" programing with a heavy emphasis on current affairs. It is this kind of specialization that makes radio ideally suited for extensive coverage of any subject.

I might point out that these hearings are being transmitted nationwide today by a team of two people from National Public Radio. As you can see, there is virtually nothing to interrupt or potentially distort the content or purpose of these proceedings. Live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of any congressional proceeding could be carried to every interested citizen in the United States in this same manner.

Beyond these advantages which are inherent in the radio medium itself, there are additional opportunities provided by the existence of the public radio system. Most important is the fact that public radio has the capacity, the time, and the interest to devote significant attention to governmental proceedings.

I believe it is apparent, however, that this kind of ongoing, comprehensive coverage through both the public radio and television systems can provide the listener and viewer not only with a better understanding of the issues currently of concern to Members of the Congress, but also and perhaps more importantly-a much better understanding of

how the Congress, or any governmental body in America, functions on a day-to-day basis.

You will be provided additional details by the presidents of PBS, APRS, and NPR when they testify before this committee next month.

The real issue before the committee is the question of access-access to your committee deliberations and floor debates. Without this greatly expanded access, concerns over the technical and physical arrangements are meaningless. As public broadcasters, we are anxious to cooperate with Congress and the networks in providing the technical expertise for physical arrangements and coverage of events.

A study on the technical aspects of this activity will be presented in later testimony by the president of PBS.

I would like now to talk about some further experience public television has had at the State level.

Connecticut Public Television (CPTV) has covered the Connecticut General Assembly since 1964. A favorable assessment of that coverage was contained in your special report prepared by the Library of Congress.

In Florida, public television coverage is used extensively throughout the State. Coverage ranges from school board meetings to community relations meetings to coverage on legislative hearings on State affairs.

Connecticut and Florida are prime examples of outstanding public television coverage of local and State governments. Representatives from both of these areas will speak further on this subject during future hearings of the committee.

After coverage of the Florida Legislature had begun, CPB provided a research grant to Florida State University to determine the effectiveness of the Florida series, "Today in the Legislature."

The study is ongoing, but preliminary findings indicate that approximately 10 percent of the homes reached by the 7 Florida public TV stations watched some portion of the programs during the legislature's session.

May I add, Mr. Chairman, I believe 10 percent coverage is an extremely high number for our kind of coverage of a legislature.

After watching the series, a significant finding revealed: "Viewers were less likely to feel alienated from government, more likely to feel voting played an important part in public affairs.”

The Florida study also examined uses of video tapes of the coverage in secondary civic classes. The study noted that those who watched the program for 5 weeks gained a greater understanding of the current legislative activity and the legislative process.

Although I have only touched upon two examples of outstanding public television coverage of government bodies, there are many local stations engaging in similar coverage with enthusiastic support from their audiences.

We urge that Congress look favorably upon the practice of providing more on-the-record, full disclosures of its deliberations. Radio and television access should cover every area, from committee hearings. to committee markup sessions to floor debates. I am convinced that the technical questions can be solved-but only after you decide to permit more extensive coverage.

If the Congress agrees to greater access, we would urge that you recommend that it also provide the necessary facilities to make that kind of coverage possible.

What we must do is create every possible incentive for the American people to become interested in the workings of their government. If the Congress agrees to live coverage of committee hearings, floor debates, et cetera, I want to go on record as recommending a system similar to the one presently in use at the United Nations. A subscription service modeled on the U.N. system would result in the greatest flexibility for broadcasters by providing a television and radio feed as well as recording all floor proceedings and committee hearings on video and audio tape. Subscribers to the service would be allowed to select whatever segments they chose. An additional benefit for public broadcasters under the subscription system would be the elimination of uncertainty about the cost of special events coverage. We know from the Watergate experience that coverage of only selected hearings or events can be very costly. This matter will be discussed with you in more depth by other representatives of public broadcasting.

It is my understanding that there may be testimony from representatives of the United Nations at a later session, and I am sure they will note the fact that some of the old arguments against live television coverage of floor debates, committee hearings, et cetera, do not necessarily hold true today. Experience has shown that the obtrusiveness factor has been greatly reduced by modern technological advances that allow effective coverage without disruption.

Whatever Congress provides and whatever cooperation we lend, the networks and public broadcasting should and must retain full control of programing, including the right to decide what hearings or debates would be covered and when they would be scheduled for viewing.

Public broadcasting is based on the proposition that a democratic society can create, through a combination of private and government support, a vital national resource that is free. Without freedom from interference and control, it can have no vitality nor can it command confidence.

We could provide full coverage, whether the event was a committee hearing or a full floor debate. But broadcasters also need constant access to congressional materials so that they are able to provide specials or documentaries on important issues.

As this process develops and you have an opportunity to see and experience the results of this increased coverage, we might want to go further and offer, in addition, a regularly scheduled national program on the model of "The Advocates" series where, within a debate forum, a pubic issue of current importance could be thoroughly discussed by Members of Congress.

The subject would be chosen by the broadcasters with Congress selecting two participants to discuss the pros and cons of an issue. This format could then be extended to provide Members of Congress the opportunity to express their views on the issue in 5-minute programs at the local level if the stations and the Members so chose. This notion for additional coverage, as a means of providing the Congress with improved access to the media and the American people with an opportunity to better understand the issues, is only my personal view and, of