I think that the next most important way is by the selection of the individuals who serve on the board. If the President nominates and the Senate confirms able people who have the respect of everybody, that is the best insulation you can have.

I think public broadcasting has been very lucky and very strong in its defense of its integrity. The Congress and in recent years the executive branch have been well aware of the very delicate first amendment issues.

We feel that having the minimum amount of the money, something like a third, come from the Federal Government and not much more than that, is itself a very important factor in insulation.

I think these are the things that are significant.

SYSTEM PLANNING PROCESS

Mr. FLOOD. According to the testimony from some of the administration witnesses, one of the reasons the President is proposing level funding authorizations for future years is the lack of a clear planning process that defines future system goals and needs.

You seem to favor increasing the authorizations. If you do not have a planning process, how do you know what increases you will need five years from now, because you do not have those plans? Mr. LOOMIS. I think, first of all, we do have plans. It depends upon what you mean by a plan and how detailed you expect the plan to be.

I think that many people consider and think of public broadcasting-they do not know as much about it in detail as you do, sir-as a centrally directed monolithic military-type organization, and you have a plan for the whole organization and you order each branch to do what it is meant to do.

This is a decentralized operation. It is established specifically that way. It is the intent of the Congress that it be that, and the intent of the system itself-of the individual licensees. They are independent.

The planning you can do for a decentralized organization is quite a different order of magnitude and a different type of planning then you can do for a central body where you control it all.

The planning that we do at our level I think is concerned more with what is the wisest way to distribute the federal funds, so they can make the greatest contribution to the nonfederal funds that are already there. How can you stimulate and reward excellence? You can plan for excellence, but what good does that do? How do you stimulate it and reward it?

I think another problem with planning is what is the right mix between having flexibility and yet having predictability? We need them both, and they are by definition contrary.

The whole point or one of the main points of the advanced year funding is predictability. You know what you have, so you can plan. You can commit money in years ahead.

We have to do the same thing. We have to commit to the stations in years ahead that their minimum community service grants will be so much, and they will be determined in such-and-such a way and the minimum for programming will be so much.

That we do. We retain a small percentage to provide flexibility for new ideas that no one had thought of or catastrophes, and that runs in the order of 5 percent.

CPB PLANNING OFFICE

Mr. FLOOD. On page 5 of your justifications you refer to a new planning office to be set up in 1978. Is that something we have not heard about? We thought you already had a planning office.

Mr. LOOMIS. Yes. We did not have a planning office. We did a fair amount of planning, and I think the satellite is an example of a very precise project that required detailed planning.

I think one of the points I should have perhaps mentioned earlier is that real planning, even of the type I have described, is only possible when you have advanced year funding. We have only existed under advanced year funding for one year.

PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. FLOOD. The President's budget request is $172 million in advance appropriations for 1981. The corporation is asking for $210 million. Since you say you can match, why doesn't the President's budget include the higher figure: do you know?

Mr. LOOMIS. I wish I did, sir. We made this presentation to the OTP staff. They were given the figures on which we had based the estimates. Why the appropriation request is less than the authorization, I don't know.

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL FUNDS

Mr. FLOOD. Your budget statement indicates that voluntary nonfederal funds available for matching in 1981 will exceed $400 million. How do you know that? Where did you get that figure of $400 million?

Mr. LOOMIS. It is a fairly careful analysis, and I will be glad to submit it for the record.

Mr. FLOOD. Let's do that.

[The information referred to follows:]

PUBLIC BROADCASTING INCOME PROJECTIONS

In the spring of 1977 a Task Force made up of the representatives of CPB, PBS and NPR was formed to analyze current financing of public broadcasting and project future income sources and allocations of these funds. After a careful, threemonth study, a report was issued.

The projections showed that public broadcasting could expect to raise over $400 million in 1979, the year against which the 1981 federal appropriations ceiling would be applied. Using this projection, the Tri-Partite Task Force adopted a set of appropriation ceilings covering 1981-85 using a recommended match of 2 to 1. Those ceilings are: 1981-$210 million; 1982-$230 million; 1983-$250 million; 1984-$275 million; 1985-$300 million.

The entire report follows:

PUBLIC BROADCASTING FINANCES:

PROFILE AND PROJECTIONS

A Joint Staff Paper
Prepared by CPB, NPR and PBS
July 8, 1977

This report profiles public broadcasting's present status and projects its financial prospects for the next decade.

PROFILING THE PRESENT

In Fiscal 1976, public broadcasting completed its first decade of Federal support for its operations. Public broadcasters operated more radio and television stations than ever before and surpassed all previous figures for hours of programming, audience and income; yet they still faced many problems which have existed since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967.

A review of public broadcasting's financial status in Fiscal 1976 (the last year for which full, though unaudited, preliminary data exist) and an analysis of the trends producing that status can provide the basis for projecting what the future may hold.

Public Broadcasting Income

Public broadcasting's total income---about $412 million---can best be analyzed by clustering sources under three general headings: Federal; Non-Federal, Tax-based; and Non-Federal, Non-Taxbased (Table 1).