large part of their income comes from. I am not trying to defend them, either. Attempts have been made to put networks under regulation. It has been resisted-time and time again-and I do not think the Congress is ready for it.

Maybe they should be placed under regulation. I am not debating that one way or the other. But when you are telling certain people they are charged with this and charged with that, and you do not tell us what the crime is, and you do not tell us what the sickness is, how can we give you the remedy?

That is the question that prevails here. Editorials all over this country were opposed to that speech. You may say it was a docile speech, intended only to reaffirm existing law. Mr. Whitehead, you know that the repercussions of that were serious, were they not? There was comment all over the country. Now, a lot of people were disturbed.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I

Senator PASTORE. That is all I am talking about. Please let us not leave the impression with anybody that, "if you do not do as Mr. Nixon says, or as Clay Whitehead says, or as Howard Baker says, or as John Pastore says that you will lose your licenses."

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield to our colleagues on the committee, but I

Senator PASTORE. That is my job; I will take care of that.
Senator BAKER. But you may-

Senator PASTORE. I will take care of that.

Senator BAKER. You take care of your side, and I will take care of my side. But you made the remark that the White House is the most powerful house in the United States, and it is and it always has been. Senator PASTORE. And I want it to be.

Senator BAKER. But I suggest that there is a strong argument to be made that network broadcasting has a greater impact on the public point of view and attitudes in the United States than any single instituition in the United States save the composite of the Government itself.

In that respect, I think it is very important to consider regulation of the networks. But if we are going to forgo regulation of the public airways through regulation of the networks, it becomes doubly important that those secondary restraints, that those disciplines that are imposed by professionalism. by news staffs and renewal techniques of local licensees must be fully and vigorously enacted.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Mr. Chairman, if I could offer one comment here. I think it is very important that everyone understand that it is not the White House, it is not the executive branch that has anything whatsoever to do with whether a license is renewed. To the contrary, we are prohibited by law from interjecting ourselves into any type of consideration of that at all. It is the FCC acting as an arm of Congress that makes these decisions in an independent way and nothing that I say can have any effect on that.

What I have been addressing myself to is the overall process and procedures, the policy, if you will, whereby these decisions are made, where they are made, and who has the first responsibility.

We in government necessarily have to concern ourselves with abuses. We generally trust to the private enterprise system and to competition.

And the processes of government are intended to deal with abuses. My speech was directed very simply and pointedly to the question, Where abuses occur, how should they be corrected?

My speech was directed very heavily at networks because three companies program about 60 percent of the television programing that the American people see. I focused very heavily on news because news is so critically tied to the purposes and objectives of the first amendment.

I also dealt with some other very important issues, such as violence, children's programing, and misleading commercials. I pointed out the responsibility of the broadcast industry, which is to exercise responsibility in the first instance, so that it is not necessary for the FCC or the Congress to apply more restrants to these areas.

Senator PASTORE. I want to say as sincerely as I can, Mr. Whitehead, that your presentation here today, and the last remark that you made is a lot different than the connotation of your speech which I read. I am pointing here to a Sunday, December 24, editorial in the Los Angeles Times and entitled, "Intimidation of the Networks."

The White House has decided that television is not as good as it should be and says it is going to do something about it. But hold your cheers for there is evidence it may be nothing more than a mask for an effort to intimidate network network news and programing.

Now, that is generally the impression that was created abroad. That is the reason I asked you if you were writing that speech all over again, would you write the same speech. Then you turned around at the Americana and said you were misunderstood.

Now, apparently whatever you said confused a lot of people. It confused me. Scared the devil out of me, too; because I believe in the freedom of speech and I believe in the first amendment. And I think you do, too.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Absolutely.

Senator PASTORE. But the point is that you operate out of the White House, and you made this very dramatic speech in December, and followed it up with another speech in January where you more or less retreated a little bit and tried to soft-soap the licensee by saying, “Now I am going to give you 5-year licenses and I am going to make it easier for you to avoid a challenge at renewal."

It kind of softened it up a little bit. I think the second time you were trying to appeal more or less to the people that you had hurt the first time. I would hope that today at least you will admit that there was misunderstanding, there was confusion, because of the speech that you made.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I agree there was misunderstanding, there was confusion. The subsequent speech I gave really did nothing more than elaborate on the legislation I discussed in the first speech. I will concede there was some strong and colorful language in that first speech.

But that was done because we think these issues are important. They are so sensitive that public attention should be called to them, and they should receive full and open debate. They should receive the kind of debate we are giving it today. Continued use of that colorful language, I agree, will not serve any very useful purpose.

Senator PASTORE. I want to pass on to my other colleagues. I think you will have to come back this afternoon, if you can. Can you?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Yes, sir.

Senator PASTORE. I want to ask you a question about public broadcasting. When the Educational Facilities Act was passed in 1962 and the Public Broadcasting Act was passed in 1967, we had only 100 TV stations. We have 233. Now we suggested a 2-year authorization for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

I understand that you were the one that recommended that the President veto the bill that we passed which was for a 2-year authorization. Now, within a matter of days we have a request for another 1-year authorization that has come up. Now the testimony before our committee has always been that the Corporation needs a 2-year period in order to do the proper programing.

It takes almost 18 months before you make a contract and the program can get on the air. Now what is really your objection on the 2-year authorization when we had them for 2 years?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Our objection is only an objection as to the time at which such an authorization could be adopted and the conditions that would prevail in it. My feeling is that 2 years is probably too short, that 3 to 5 years is a more nearly acceptable range for the purposes of providing a long-range basis for the planning of the Corporation and to provide a bit of needed insulation from the processes of Government. However, as the President pointed out in his veto message, reflecting, I think, a concern of the Congress when it deferred the adoption of a plan for long-range financing, we have to think this through very carefully.

We have to make sure the structure under which funds are provided for that length of time does indeed encourage the kind of system that the Congress intended when it established the Corporation and reflects a sense of purpose and agreement within the public broadcast system-not just the Corporation, but also the stations as to what the relative roles should be. We feel that as there is sufficient uncertainty about both of those aspects, it would not be responsible to recommend to the Congress a longer term of authorization.

Se we are going forward on a carefully measured basis, with annual appropriations, until some of these questions can be resolved. At that point in time we would expect to come forward

Senator PASTORE. But is that not counterproductive? All the witnesses that have come before the committee have said that unless we get 2 years, we cannot have an adequate program. You insist on 1 year which means inadequacy of the programing.

You can discuss this with any of the members appointed by Mr. Nixon. The majority of that Corporation are Republicans and they will tell you they need at least 2 years. Why should that not be taken into account?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. It certainly should be.

Senator PASTORE. You keep saying we have to prove that it is adequate. The trouble is that you will never prove that it is adequate unless you put up the money, unless you put up the authorization. And that is what we have failed in.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. I think if we all understand that we are going to increase the funding for public broadcasting, then the Corporation can plan on a sound basis, and can do it on a year-to-year basis.

Senator PASTORE. On a 1-year authorization?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Yes, sir. I think they can because it has

Senator PASTORE. I ask you again, will you talk it over again with the members of that Corporation? That isn't what they have told me and they are in the business.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I certainly will.

Senator PASTORE. Will you take it up with them?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I will, sir.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Moss.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On our discussion here, Mr. Whitehead, we have all been saying that there is no regulation of the networks and indicating neither you nor the chairman nor anyone thinks there should be.

Well, were you not really suggesting a secondary level of regulation by putting the burden, as you said in your speech, on the broadcasting station. Because if the broadcasting stations go off the air the networks do not have anybody to sell to?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. No: Senator, I do not think they are, unless you want to view competition and listening to a wide variety of points of view as regulation. I think of it more as a system of checks and balances reflecting the diversity of the country. It is not a regulation from Washington in any sense of the word.

Senator Moss. Is not that regulation if the revenue for one network is stopped off because of "elitist" gossip and "plugola" and ideological "plugola"; does not that regulate them? It puts them out of business. Dr. WHITEHEAD. We are not talking about cutting off their revenues. Senator Moss. You are talking about license of the stations which would not be renewed if they did not regulate themselves as you would have them do.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is not the concept, Senator. The concept is simply that the community has the opportunity to evaluate the licensee's overall performance at license renewal time. That is what license renewal is all about.

What is going to serve the public interest in that community is the question. If the community is unhappy, it has as much reason to hold the broadcaster responsible for programing that he gets from the network as programing he gets from somewhere else.

After all, the network pays him to carry that program just as advertisers pay him to carry their advertising messages. We think it reasonable-in fact, this is nothing more than what the FCC has always held, that the licensee is responsible to the community for everything that he transmits. Our concept certainly was not that somebody in Washington would oversee that community and try to make judgments about whether the network programing they were carrying should or should not have been carried.

To the contrary, we were simply saying where the community is unhappy with the programing that the licensee produced himself, or got it from somebody else who paid him to carry it, the licensee is the man to whom the community has a right to turn to and complain to. Senator Moss. How is the community heard? That is the point. How is the community heard?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Well, the theory is that the community should be heard by the licensee. Under the concept of the 1934 Communications

Act, the broadcaster undertakes to program his frequency in the public interest.

Senator Moss. All right.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. To satisfy the public, not for his own personal use. So, the community ought to be able to go to the licensee and say, "We are unhappy. You have put things on that we think are destructive; more likely you have left things out that reflect a need or interest we feel in our community, and we would like to see you cover more of that."

The concept of the Congress was, I think, that the licensee would say, "I am the man who has responsibility for seeing that all of that is treated fairly and is covered."

He would make those kinds of judgments, and the community, when they complain, would get a fair hearing and get some accommodation. Unfortunately, that does not happen as much as it should.

More and more, the licensee says, "Talk to the network, they produced it. I do not have anything to do about it." That is not a very constructive attitude.

Or, the licensee will say, "Write to the FCC," or "Write to your Congressman." Well, that is not very effective either. All we were saying was that these men out there, who take a license, who undertake the responsibility to serve the public, know what they are doing. They make plenty of money, they ought to be more attuned to what the community's complaints are than they are today.

Senator Moss. Well, all right, if a member of the community complains to the television station and says, "We do not like the program"; the television station answers back, that, "Well, all right, we will look into it."

The license comes along. How are they going to have any effect in that community on whether or not his license is extended?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. They have two ways. They can file a petition to deny that license, with the FCC; or they can get together and say, "We think someone else could provide us better service," and they can file a competing application.

Senator Moss. Is that any different than what they can do, now? Dr. WHITEHEAD. NO.

Senator Moss. It does not achieve anything, does it?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. What we were talking about in the legislation we are preparing to submit to the Congress, is a clarification of the process whereby the FCC renews licenses and considers competing applications.

The FCC has had a difficult time dealing with this. The courts have had something to say about how the law, as now written, should be interpreted, and Congress, in the past, has tried to deal with it.

We are going to propose a change that we think is very constructive, in that it gives the licensee a little more stability and provides a little more guidance from the Congress as to how the FCC is going to handle these matters.

By and large, that is in the direction of less regulation from Washington, less opportunity for the FCC to interject its own judgments about what the licensee ought, and ought not to do, and turn them more nearly to the task of evaluating whether the licensee has listened. to his community.