as well. And the program people at the children's television workshop which produces "Sesame Street" feel that in many ways what they are doing every day is by way of environmental education, because they are endeavoring to create an awareness and a sense of values for the youngsters observing those programs in terms of the world around them, so that he doesn't grow up in isolation and that poverty is not his lifetime lot.

As far as injecting some of the implicit curriculum into classroom programing, that is already occurring in some of the programs that are developed for delivery by public broadcasting stations into the classroom. Where that is done, it has to be done in conjunction with the local school systems, because we have 22,000 in this country. There isn't a great deal of uniformity, and it depends a great deal on the attitude of the existing school system, upon the system and curriculum creators and the teachers themselves, as to how much of this can be done.

I feel this is very important. That in this environmental educational effort that those in education be brought along with it; that they see the opportunity to really provide some new meaning and I think some new color to teaching by relating it to the environmental situation.

I feel that in the institution I have described, we would try to find and try to create a home for creative educators, as well as others who can use the media creatively.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that, and I was especially glad, Mr. Macy, to see you tie in, and again in your statement talk about the need for new attitudes, the need for new materials and the need for new methods of teaching innovation. I think you have caught the central purpose of this bill.

I have just one other question to put to you and then turn you over to Mr. Hansen.

You say on page 5 of your statement that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is committed to providing opportunities for the citizen to become an active, effective participant in the development of public broadcasting and especially in producing programs on such vital issues as environmental improvement.

Can you tell us more concretely what you mean by that objective? Mr. MACY. Yes, sir. Our belief is that since we are a public broadcasting corporation, and since we are endeavoring to provide a public service, that it is important that we learn as fully and effectively as we can what the needs and desires of the American people are in terms of the media.

As I have cited, initially we have formed an advisory committee of national organizations. We are urging the individual stations to create local advisory committees.

We are also eager to find new formats whereby the citizen can actually participate in the programs. An example of our experimentation along this line was what we endeavored to do at the time of the White House Hunger Conference in December. With limited funds, we worked with 12 of the stations for their development of local town meetings to discuss the problems of food and health and nutrition.

Out of those 12 meetings came a series of actions in many of the communities where they were held, as well as a video record of public attitudes on many of these issues.

We are hopeful on such vital issues as environment and hunger and population, and other issues that are so central to our society today and for the future, that there can be a greater degree of involvement by citizens themselves in the treatment of those issues by the public media.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I thank you very much.

Mr. Hansen?

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me extend a warm welcome to you, Mr. Macy, and express my appreciation for your testimony. You may be interested to know that after I came to my office this morning, my wife, having read the witness list in the newspaper, telephoned me to call to my attention the fact that you were going to be here. She was impressed with your background, and told me many of your accomplishments. I am also impressed.

Mr. MACY. Thank you, sir; thanks to her.

Mr. HANSEN. I am very excited, in listening to your testimony, over the possibility of utilizing educational television as one of the most potent instruments in reaching the public consciousness and in providing the information that must be the basis for the shaping of attitudes toward the environment.

So I commend you for the very constructive set of goals that you have outlined in your testimony.

Most of the questions I had, the chairman has covered, but I have maybe one or two you could elaborate on.

In attempting to achieve the objectives that you have outlined in your testimony, can you list some specific contributions that this bill will make if it is passed and implemented?

Mr. MACY. I feel that this bill is important in establishing a congressionally supported statement of national policy on the desirability of developing in our educational system means for disseminating the better understanding and higher awareness of the environmental problems that we face.

I believe that this kind of affirmative statement would go a long way to guide the executive action in bringing this about. I would feel that from the rather unusual perch that we have, as an organization not of the Government, and really not of the private sector, that it would be exceedingly helpful to have this congressional intent as clearly as forcibly expressed as it is in this legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. On the question of programs, such as "Sesame Street," and I know you have covered this somewhat in response to the chairman's question, what environmental component do you anticipate incorporating into programs aimed primarily at the preschool child?

I might say that a number of witnesses who have testified in these hearings have emphasized the importance of educational efforts as early as possible in the life of the child.

So I think, the rather remarkable results that we have seen from Sesame Street, suggests that more attention might be given to these very young children in helping to develop the kinds of attitude toward the world they live in.

Mr. MACY. That is very true. Some recent research has evidenced that a large part of the learning experience now occurs before the child goes to school. So the preschool experience is tremendously important in determining the youngster's future capability, and since

the preschool child, regardless of his economic background, is now watching television 30 to 50 hours a week, that becomes his window on the world, that becomes his exposure to the environment.

As far as the components of presentation are concerned, the experience in Sesame Street, is that it is desirable to give the youngster knowledge of the elements in the world around him. These programs are particularly intended for the child of a disadvantaged background.

The research has shown that the youngsters in the ghetto or the rural poor live a kind of environmental isolation, and they don't appreciate the elements that constitute their world. So that this is a means of using that window on the world to show them what exists.

I recall that in the very first program there was a very good, fastmoving treatment of milk and where the milk came from and the importance of it in a diet. There have been little episodes about the importance of avoiding litter, and the aspects of trash collection. There has been by subtle and educational approaches reference to air and water pollution and the need for purity.

All of this was done with also an eye for entertainment. This has been the great achievement; this has been a combination of education and learning.

So I would hope that our programing wouldn't be so self-conscious in its attack on environmental problems that it would cause the youngster to turn it off, and I don't feel it has to be that way. That is why I took the time I did in my statement to indicate that we want to use drama; we want to use music; we want to use all of the aspects of our culture that can serve to point this up.

I recall last summer when we had a series of Sunday evening programs on public broadcasting called "Sounds of Summer." One of them clearly was an ecological demonstration because it was music delivered by Pete Seeger and his crew as part of an effort to clean up the Hudson River.

I think in many ways we can utilize sort of a multimedia approach to deliver the message on environment, and I would hope the creative people in education and the media would be able to come up with new and effective ideas.

Mr. HANSEN. To what extent may we expect some of the leadership that you have been furnishing in this area, some of the results of your pioneering efforts to be followed by commercial television? Can the objectives you have outlined be accomplished by commercial television! Mr. MACY. Yes, I think already we are seeing the impact of "Sesame Street" on children's programing on the commercial networks. I pointed out yesterday in my appearance before the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications that all three networks have hired new vice presidents for children's programing since "Sesame Street" went on the air in November.

Chairman Burch of the FCC said he looked at the public broadcasting as setting a kind of standard for broadcasters that in many ways would be a more effective means for improving commercial programing than increased regulation.

Let me add, lest I be misunderstood, the commercial broadcasters have been very supportive of everything that we have been doing in public broadcasting.

Washington is full of fight promoters and people are trying to promote a fight between commercial and public broadcasting. It just doesn't exist. In fact, a great deal of our support has come from private networks, and I expect we would find ways of working with them. in this whole environmental area.

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I am aware of the support that has come from private television. From what you tell us here, apparently any real success that we can demonstrate in educational television would be multiplied in terms of its total impact because of the likelihood that it may be picked up and incorporated in the content of the commercial television programing.

Mr. MACY. I feel that it will. I think this is an optimistic note, and I think in our society, where there is a variety of competing means for delivery, that this competition will be healthy in delivering a valued product to the viewer and the listener.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much for your statement.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Macy, thank you very much, indeed, and we shall try to tune in as soon as possible on some of the programs you will be doing across the country next week.

Mr. MACY. Thank you again for your leadership in this field.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Our next witness is Mr. Peter S. Hunt. Mr. Hunt, we are glad to have you with us. Please proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF PETER S. HUNT, PETER HUNT ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING FIRM, BRONXVILLE, N.Y.

Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

My name is Peter Hunt, and I run a small consulting firm that was formed some 3 years ago to focus on the problems of our physical environment. My personal background includes management consulting in the fields of systems analysis, planning programing and budgeting, cost benefit analysis and some 6 years of marketing and finance in one of the country's largest corporations. I hold an MBA from Columbia and an undergraduate degree in the biological sciences.

Since my experience in education is limited to the role of student, I would like to focus the majority of my comments on the proposed managerial concepts and structure of this bill. In essence, the composition, dimensions, and operating procedures of the organization is expected to bring the purposes of this legislation to reality. Although it may sound self-serving, I am convinced that an inappropriately designed organization would needlessly frustrate the attainment of the bill's goals. In short, it would take longer and cost more than necessary to do the job.

However, before addressing these subjects, I would like to register my complete and enthusiastic endorsement of the legislation's underlying concept. That our survival as a species is threatened because of our insensitive behavior toward our environment is not subject to serious question. To control this situation before it becomes a terminal condition will, I am convinced, require some fundamental changes in our individual behavior. It is unrealistic to expect that these necessary behavioral changes can be effected by legislative action without. first convincing the public of the consequences of doing nothing. In

effect, you must through education build a constituency which will accept, if not demand, what would be currently viewed as unwarranted and disruptive Federal intervention.

This bill responsibily serves the governmental function in cultivating a public awareness of the consequences of continued deterioration. of our world's environment quality.

In addressing specific aspects of the bill, I feel first the scope of the policy section is too restrictive. The problems of the environment, and hence their understanding, is not limited by national boundaries. What we do to the Great Lakes influences Canada; the destruction of national estuaries influences international fisheries; foreign atomic testing may impact our personal health. I thus recommend that the scope of the policy section be expanded to include international, as well as purely national considerations of the environment.

By doing so, you would permit international exchanges of curriculum, faculty, technical data, processes, and cooperative programs. It is my understanding that Sweden has already initiated an adult education program on environmental problems that might be useful in the development of our domestic efforts.

If I may depart from my statement at this time, Mr. Frank Potter and I have been in contact with Mr. Olander at the Swedish Embassy and hope to have an opportunity to review their program this summer.

I would now like to direct my comments to the mechanisms and proposed structure for implementing the intent of this bill. The problems we are attempting to correct are extremely sensitive to time. The costs of any specified result tend to increase exponentially over time and indeed may pass a point of no return where correction becomes impossible. We cannot bring back the passenger pigeon. It is extinct. We should not attempt to bring back Lake Erie since we could buy so much more with the required resources if we spent them on other lakes and rivers.

In light of this high sensitivity to the passage of time, the managing organization of this program should be designed for rapid aggressive decisionmaking. True, the probability of making mistakes with a fastacting group is higher than with the slower moving traditional structures. But it is my intuitive feeling that the cost of these inevitable errors will be more than offset by the social and economic costs that will attend the deferred decisions of a slow and deliberate organization.

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

An advisory committee of 21 members is far too large to handle the duties of managing this program. To be effective within a workable time frame, policy decisions and grant approvals are going to have to be made on a day-to-day basis, without waiting for the approval of a chairman and 20 part-time peers.

In line with this, I recommend that all duties of the advisory committee be placed in a full-time team of three program directors. That in the selection of these directors, no preference be given to people with either scientific or educational backgrounds, but that the qualification be those of a general executive who has a personal conviction as to the importance of the job.