anything else coming out of this bill-we see no way public television will do anything but continue to treat us like a poor cousin. I would like you to imagine what it is like to try to negotiate a sale of work to public television, and maybe you'll be in the office of a public television official or you'll be talking on the phone. A price will be mentioned and in that conversation you can imagine that he may talk to an associate and he might say: Where else can this guy go with this film? The associate will, of course, say: No place. And that's exactly the case.

And then you'll have another conversation and a price will be mentioned, and if it's low, you may make some noise about it, but basically you will take what he gives you. Because he knows, and you know, that you have nowhere else to go. And the problem is that this driver's seat kind of situation permeates all your dealings with the system. It affects original funding. It affects editorial control. And it affects advertising and publicity after the work is finished.

During the last hearings, Mr. Wirth asked several times what kind of an animal do we have here, trying to get at the nature of public television. And I'd like to say something about what we think it is not, because we think there are a couple of myths here getting in the way.

The first one is the myth of uniqueness, the idea that when we are dealing with public television we are talking about a very special breed of broadcaster, someone with different goals and values, who if left to his own devices will automatically come up with bold and imaginative programing simply by virtue of his inherent uniqueness.

My feeling is these people are no different than the rest of us. There are some very good ones, including some at the top, and there are some Neanderthals, and there is a whole range in the middle, and, I suspect, in about the same proportion as you would find at ABC, NBC, or CBS. In fact, I would ask you to make a little test. The next time you are talking to a public broadcaster, ask him what his background is, and I'll bet in 7 out of 10 cases, if you scratch a public television official you will find some commercial broadcasting in his history. But the point I want to make about this is even if no public broadcaster had a commercial background, that doesn't make them unique. Just because they are not lining their pockets with advertising revenues does not mean they are going to be immune to the sorts of temptations that befall any powerful person. I'm talking about isolation, empire building, growth for growth's sake. I think the studies of multinational corporations have shown there is a whole range of nonmonetary drives that contribute to power abuse.

The other is the myth of governmental interference. You've heard a lot of that during the hearings. Here there is always the reference to history. But when Larry Hall talks about the history of free speech, he is apt to go back to the Declaration of Independence or Tom Payne, or when Jack Golodner of the AFL-CIO talks about history, he may go back to the unions in the thirties and their struggles. But when Newton Minow or Jay Iselin talk about history, they seem to stop at 1972.

It is a curious kind of amnesia block. I think if I were a psychiatrist, I would have to call it severe Clay Whitehead trauma. But the interesting thing you notice if you go back and look at that situation, is first, that Nixon lost that battle. Right away that should tell us something about the efficiency of Government interference. But even if you want to make the chilling effect case, which is certainly the case that public broadcasters are constantly trying to make. Is it conceivable that the reason Whitehead was able to have such a chilling effect on public television is because the people he was intimidating were so eminently chillable?

By that I'm suggesting that maybe corporation board chairmen and prominent lawyers and high academics may tend to take very seriously the words of people in the administration who use the same vocabulary they do and who go to the same Washington parties. We're wondering what would happen if you had on local and national boards representation that represented a real cross section of our society, not only in terms of race and sex but in terms of class, as well.

In other words, what would happen if you had people on those boards whose most likely reaction to such a threat would be: "Clay who?" You might get a very different atmosphere.

So finally I'd like to end with our suggestions, because the first one is related directly to what I just said about board makeup. On national boards, we think the way you might get this kind of cross section is by eliciting names from the sort of groups who are testifying before you. Why can't they be made a part of that process, a part of the selection process?

On the local level, we think boards should be elected just like you would elect a school board. We have no faith in these community advisory boards. We think they are used in a manipulative fashion by the system for P.R. purposes.

Now, on the 3-percent advertising, I am afraid I really do feel it's like being a little bit pregnant. I agree with what Mr. Marks said. In fact, my own feeling, before I came down here, was that that was just a red herring which had been thrown in to make the current funding structure look respectable. But after this morning's discussion, I think I will reevaluate that. It seems to be being given very serious consideration.

But we continue to feel that corporate underwriting has no place in public television.

We are very sorry to see the affirmative action procedures go, and we think titles VI and IX should be part and parcel of this bill. We were equally sorry to see the facilities program diminished. We don't like the 50-percent match, and, while we were glad to see the waiver, we don't understand why the match is in there in the first place. Independents don't have the kind of staff to do that sort of fundraising.

On section 644, "Rights to Programs," we think all of that should be predicated on full funding. If you're going to have only partial funding, I don't think we can give away those rights. That's particularly true in the case of independent features where if you have only partial funding, you need something to bargain.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Would you mind repeating that whole statement?

Mr. ARLYCK. Which one?

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. What you just said.

Mr. ARLYCK. On the "Rights to Programs". In other words, after the system broadcasts a program. We're talking about subsequent rights to programs in section 644. We think if you're going to have partial funding; that is, if the public television system is going to partially fund something, we can't really give away exclusive rights. And I said that's particularly true in the case of features because if you're doing a feature and only get partial funding, you need something to bargain. And on that 1-year business, you may not be able to have-in other words, you have to be able to bargain theatrical rights for the first year before it goes on television. We think all that should be up for negotiation.

And then finally, the same thing on educational and library rights. We think that has to be predicated on bigger budgets. That was my last suggestion. We think we can't give away those audiovisual rights afterward unless we have a decent salary included in the budget to begin with.

So finally, I'd just like to point out again that everything I've said about public television is predicated on the notion that a public television system would be in place before any deregulation

occurs.

I would be happy to answer questions.

Mr. SWIFT [presiding]. Thank you very much for your statement. I gather that in terms of your organization, you have just written off any real market for your group as far as commercial television is concerned.

Mr. ARLYCK. Definitely.

Mr. SWIFT. So you see as one of your major markets remaining as public television.

Mr. ARLYCK. I think in the context of this bill, if the deregulation that bill envisions goes through, we are absolutely dead ducks. There is some ferment going on. There is an antitrust suit going on against the networks and there is a little bit of movement there, but I think all of that will be rolled back if this bill goes through the way it is.

Mr. SWIFT. But still you see public television as a market which remains.

Mr. ARLYCK. Right, but we are a poor cousin. If they know we can't go anywhere else, then they can deal with us from a position of power.

Mr. SWIFT. And I do sense from your remarks that you would not agree with Mr. Collins that public television is a totally different breed of cat altogether and should be dealt with separately from the other television aspects of this bill.

Mr. ARLYCK. Well, it depends upon which way you go about it. We think television legislation, the public television legislation, should be in place and working before any deregulation is considered. No, we would like to see it as a separate entity.

Mr. SWIFT. I thought you said one of the two myths was that public television was different from—

Mr. ARLYCK. That it was unique.

Mr. SWIFT. Well, what does unique mean?

Mr. ARLYCK. Well, I wasn't speaking as to the way it should be handled in a particular legislative bill. I was talking about a certain mentality. That is, I was speaking to the myth that we don't need to interfere with it; that simply because it is public television, it will automatically be bold and imaginative and right thinking. We don't buy that. We think it needs to be watched very carefully-and legislated.

Mr. SwIFT. You said the situation can only get worse. What situation were you talking about? It seemed to me you were talking about the situation in which you as a film or video producer try to find someone who will buy your product. Were you suggesting that if you totally deregulate, as the bill would indicate, that your situation vis-a-vis selling the product would only get worse? Is that what you mean?

Mr. ARLYCK. Yes, with the networks, because the sorts of programs we tend to produce are not the kinds of programs that are going to bring huge revenues to the networks. And the only reason they may ever be tempted to deal with us is to meet FCC requirements.

Mr. SWIFT. How would you go about funding public television? You said you did not like the provisions in the bill which would permit them to sell some commercial time, and you indicated you don't even like the underwriting concept of the bill. How would you go about providing the funding for public television?

Mr. ARLYCK. Let me say first I am not sure the system needs as much money as it thinks it does. We would like to see it have some more money but we don't think that is the core of the problem. I was a little distressed to listen to the discussion this morning because it all seemed to revolve around that.

I think this committee, in the public television funding bill hearings, has heard enough about the squabbles between CPB, PBS, and station preoccupation with fundraising precisely; that maybe if the system were streamlined and if more money were put into programing, it wouldn't need so much.

But we'd like to see the system have more money. We were sorry to see the spectrum use fee cutback. We think that is a good way to do it. The idea was brought up this morning about cable tax. That seems fine. We're just not so concerned about that Government interference bugaboo that is constantly brought up. We don't see it as the problem that the system sees it as.

Mr. SWIFT. That was the other myth of the two you referred to. You feel that there is no real danger of Government financing bringing about Government control over programing. Obviously there are other countries in the world in which they seem to be unable to develop an appropriate amount of insulation, Canada being one of them.

What mechanisms do you think we might have to put in place if we were to go into full Federal Government funding of all public television? Just to make that clear cut, what kinds of insulation do you think we would have to have to prevent Congress or an administrative agency from then beginning to get too much control over programing?

Mr. ARLYCK. The insulation boils down to democratizing the system. You have got to let the "outs" in. You've got to elect local

boards. You've got to get people on those boards who are not necessarily tied in to the power structure of the society.

Mr. Swift. We elect public school boards and we have Federal aid to education, and with that comes a tremendous amount of strength.

Mr. ARLYCK. Well, I don't know that it has to be that way. Mr. SWIFT. I would agree with you, but I can't think of any instance where it has not been that way. Perhaps it is not appropriate to be concerned that history might repeat itself in public broadcasting as it has in other areas where the Federal dollar has come along.

One thing I would like to correct for the record. I am informed-

Mr. ARLYCK. Let me just say that I am not suggesting that the Government ought to—I mean, I think this committee's reluctance, to be very specific, particularly in the programing area, is quite correct, and I think it ought to continue to exercise that restraint. We are certainly not advocating that the Government get more heavily into programing.

Mr. SWIFT. I understand that. I tend to agree that there ought to be a mechanism by which we could have more direct Government funding without necessarily assuming there is going to be a followon of Government control. But I am thinking you had better be sure what that mechanism is, because just to say it is not going to happen or that by doing it at the local level it won't happen seems to be incorrect from the experience we have had in other programs. For the record, I want to correct one thing. Counsel informs me the EEO section in this bill is the same as it was in the last bill, and it is the same the way it is now. In other words, it does not eliminate responsibility of broadcasters in equal employment opportunity.

Mr. ARLYCK. I don't believe that title VI and title IX are there, are they?

Mr. SWIFT. I would defer to counsel on that.

Mr. ARLYCK. My understanding is it was up to the States. There are no title IX and title VI provisions in the bill.

Ms. SACHS. If I could just clarify that, Mr. Chairman, the EEO provisions in title VI of H.R. 3333 are carried over from the provisions that were enacted into law in the Financing Act last year, so that you will have essentially the same situation. And titles VI and IX will apply as they have in the past.

Mr. ARLYCK. And how will affirmative action operate in that context?

Ms. SACHS. The Office of Civil Rights at HEW is in the process of working up regulations. They have told us in oversight hearings that affirmative action will be a part of those regulations.

Mr. SWIFT. I have no further questions.

I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, of the exact way in which I both recognize you and turn the gavel back to you at the same time. I think I do it by moving my body down.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Ms. Sachs.

Ms. SACHS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the chairman said at the outset this morning, we are moving quite quickly into a markup session, so I wondered if you could be