mandated in 1988. We are, after all, talking about an appropriation for 1994, which is 3 years hence.

If this committee wants to guarantee meaningful change in public television, I hope it will recognize this is a vital opportunity to provide increased resources for ITVS's mission in the future, and to insure that it is significantly greater than an increase proportional to the growth of the CPB budget as a whole.

The Public Broadcasting System currently has put all its eggs into a big, prime-time, big-splash basket which is designed to compete with cable for large audiences. ITVS, on the other hand, is dedicated to spending its money and spreading it around the country with a variety of quality and low-budget programs which are uniquely creative and diverse.

PREPARED STATEMENT

ITVS is dedicated to funding projects which public television otherwise might not fund. And as such, it offers public television what we might think of as an incubator. When ITVS programs succeed, they will become models for similar kinds of programming in the system more generally. The net result should be to invite public television to be less adverse to risk, to discover different ways of relating to its audience, and to make it clear to audiences who have traditionally felt excluded that there is a continuing place for them on public television.

And as life-long believer in public TV, I can think of no higher mission. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHOTT

Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee:

My thanks for your belief in the creative vision of independent film and video producers across the country, and thanks as well for your support of the Independent Television Service which is dedicated to funding and distributing the best of this independent work on public television. The Independent Television Service is intent on redirecting public television to the original founding vision as articulated in the Carnegie Commission Report of 1967: making it "an environment hospitable to risk, to a search for new forms, and to creative work by persons of exceptional talent. It [public television] must look to the fullest exploitation and realization of television as a medium in its own right. It must think in terms of new audiences. In the end, it may be a means by which a whole world of creative talent, which now stands aloof from television, can begin to serve and to draw strength from the diverse audiences that Public Television will reach."

At a time when public television dollars are going more and more to major prime-time series whose increasingly entertainment-oriented subjects are often carefully designed to attract large national audiences, corporate sponsors and new members, the Independent Television Service promises to bring viewers something different. Our express mission is to create genuine and widespread diversity and innovation in programming, and to attract new audiences to public television: including those presently unserved and underserved, particularly rural and regional audiences, people of color, and children. Put simply, ITVS seeks to create a public service television; to offer viewers programming of substance, programming which speaks directly and in new ways to their lives and needs, and in response to the many different communities from which they may come. ITVS is dedicated to making programs for the heterogeneous needs of our country, not following the trend of seeking the largest and most homogeneous audiences for the the sake of ratings.

No group of producers is more capable of realizing this re-dedication of public television to its original mission than our nation's independent producers. Independents comprise the thousands of smaller producing groups around the country who, up to now, have in one way or another been excluded from bringing their fresh ideas and passionate voices to public

television. But now, thanks to Congressional support, the Independent Television Service is helping to change that.

ITVS was mandated by Congress to be up and operating in 1988. However, it has taken over two years of negotiation with CPB to agree to appropriate contractual terms for its creation, terms which guarantee ITVS its proper autonomy. ITVS will receive $8 million for FY 1992. At least 5.6 million of this is set aside for independent production; the remainder, divided roughly into three equal parts, goes to providing (1) promotion and outreach services to support the programs, (2) packaging costs to insure that they will have maximum attractiveness to public television programmers, and (3) overhead and administrative costs for the service.

Had the Independent Television Service been funded at the time Congress requested, it would now be offering viewers programs which deliver on its promise, and would have demonstrable reason to request an increase in funding for its crucial work. We trust, however, that this committee will see the importance even at this date of making an increased commitment to ITVS funding beyond the start-up amount mandated in 1988. We are, after all, talking about the appropriation for 1994, three years hence. If this committee wants to guarantee meaningful change in public television, I hope it will recognize this as a vital opportunity to provide increased resources for ITVS's mission in the future, and to insure that it is significantly greater than an increase proportional to the growth of the CPB budget as a whole.

It is revealing to contrast the Independent Television Service's $8 million for FY 1992 with public television's $100 million production fund for primetime programming. Moreover, public television's prime time offering is geared to raising substantial promotion and production funding from corporate underwriting, which will more than double the $100 million. ITVS's mandate, on the other hand, is not compatible with corporate underwriting.

This subcommittee's recommendation currently provides only just over $8 million for FY 1993. I trust you agree that by 1994 the allotment should be significantly increased to allow ITVS to meet its full task. Money set aside for the Independent Television Service may be some of the best money spent in public television: it is funding which goes directly to programs which themselves are dedicated to getting public television back on track.

Although ITVS is, at this late date, just now signing its initial production contracts with CPB, it has already accomplished a great deal. The service issued its first request for proposals, sending over 24,000 applications to independents throughout the country. This was the first truly

comprehensive national mailing from any media organization and was carefully directed to producers who are generally overlooked, particularly regional producers, emerging talent and producers of color. As a result of ITVS's unprecedented attempt at broadening opportunity, we received 2,040 proposals this past month--the largest response to any media funding initiative of which we have heard. Clearly there are a host of individual voices eager to speak through the national media if given the opportunity.

The public broadcasting system currently is putting all its eggs into a primetime, big-splash basket designed to complete with cable for large audiences. ITVS, on the other hand, is dedicated to spreading its money around the country with a variety of quality, low-budget programs uniquely creative and diverse. ITVS is dedicated to funding projects which public television otherwise might not fund. As such, it offers public television what we might think of as an "incubator": when ITVS programs succeed, they should become models for similar kinds of programming. The net result should be to invite the system to be less adverse to risk, to discover different ways of relating to its audience, and to make it clear to audiences who have traditionally felt excluded that there is a continuing place for them on public television. As a lifelong believer in public television, I can think of no higher mission.

Over the next years the Independent Television Service will prove its worth by offering viewers great programming. In the mean time, due to our late start, and to the requirement of forward funding, we must trust that this committee will recognize the service as one of exceptional promise, one deserving of substantially increased support.

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Schott, thank you very much. This subcommittee is well aware of the $8 million and the mandate to CPB to get the $8 million out. But this is the first year of that.

Mr. SCHOTT. That is correct.

Senator HARKIN. And you say that you have had 2,040 proposals this past month. How many do you hope to fund of those?

Mr. SCHOTT. Well, that will depend on a panel. I would hope that, out of that, we might fund something like 15 programs for public television. And, of course, that is not our entire initiative, it is only one aspect of it.

Senator HARKIN. I do not understand that; 15 out of 2,040?

Mr. SCHOTT. Well, unfortunately, that is the case. We have a tremendous desire by independent producers across the country to produce for public television. And we will be setting aside roughly $2 million out of $6 million for this one initiative. There will be many other opportunities in programs by which people can apply, but there is a tremendous desire by independent producers to speak through television and a paucity of dollars.

Senator HARKIN. What do you mean, on page 2, when you say that "ITVS's mandate, on the other hand, is not compatible with corporate underwriting." What is your mandate? What does that mean?

Mr. SCHOTT. Well, we feel that corporate underwriting over the last 5 to 10 years has become extremely conservative. It seeks to produce programs that reflect its corporate identity. It has become very nervous about any programs which are controversial and it has wanted to celebrate rather than to provide any kind of criticism through television. It is looking for a very wide demographic which serves it. It is not particularly interested in regional issues. Corporate funding has not been particularly concerned about the issues of minorities. And so it has become very narrow and defined. And public television has responded to that. We are not back with the old days, 20 years ago, in which there was widespread support in corporate America for unusual and nontraditional programs. So part of this conservatism within the system has come from trying to find a program idea that is acceptable to a corporate funder.

We believe that public television is really going to serve its original mandate, that it has to be prepared to fund things which conservative corporations are not prepared to fund.

Senator HARKIN. When you give these grants out to independent producers, what assurance do you have that public television is going to carry it?

Mr. SCHOTT. Well, we are confident that the procedures by which we will be able to select those programs will, first of all, make them good programs. Out of 2,000 programs, we will have the opportunity of say, choosing the best 15. I think that gives us great confidence. Beyond that, we will provide a variety of production supports to see that those programs are moving forward, to work with the individual producers creatively, and we will also have a wide range of the kind of ascertainments around the country to define the issues that ITVS should be responding to. So I think we are quite confident that we will have a series of first rate programs. But like anyone else who produces for public television, we will have no guarantees that the program will be run, any more