[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1755-S1756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have spoken critically of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the whole system of public 
broadcasting with which it is associated on this floor on some 
occasions, but I would like to compliment CPB for something its board 
did last week.
  The board decided to begin to require that the CPB will receive a 
percentage of income from sales exceeding $25,000 of toys, books, 
clothing, and other products related to shows funded by the CPB. I hope 
that this will begin immediately to substitute for taxpayers' payments 
to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. President, I have been one who has advocated reinventing or 
possibly privatizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That 
means the corporation here in Washington, DC. Each State has its State 
public broadcasting system and a lot of them do a great deal of good in 
terms of education, and in terms of providing unique programming.
  Indeed, it is my opinion that public broadcasting in South Dakota 
would be better off under a privatized or a reinvented system of public 
broadcasting.
  I also want to commend the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 
that the executives, I understand, are starting some meetings with at 
least one regional Bell operating company. I hope they meet with 
several cable companies and others to see how they can interact with 
the information superhighway and perhaps provide other income and 
enrich programming in public broadcasting in the United States.
  Last Friday, I had a fascinating conversation with Glen Jones, of 
Jones Intercable of Colorado. He is privately providing educational 
materials and educational programming across the United States and 
around the world. He wants to expand upon this and finds it is a very 
marketable and useful thing to do for public service, as well as in 
terms of promoting his own company.
  In addition, there are many privately run cable channels elsewhere 
which are making a great contribution in terms of quality educational 
programming. Nickelodeon is making a great contribution to children's 
programming and is even marketing children's programming in France. The 
Learning Channel, the History Channel, Arts and Entertainment, the 
Disney Channel, and many more, are providing good programming with 
which our public TV friends could interact and could achieve a great 
deal of income in some cases.
  Earlier, I observed on this floor that we could privatize the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other entities in public 
broadcasting; that if a private company would take a percentage of the 
program rights that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Public 
Broadcasting Service or National Public Radio just give away, it would 
more than replenish the $300 million a year that the Congress gives the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That has been verified by many 
corporate leaders who have told me they would like to buy public 
broadcasting entities or they would like to participate in partnerships 
for public broadcasting. These private sector leaders assured me they 
would accept conditions requiring preservation of a certain amount of 
rural service or small city service or children's programming.
  I have compared the situation to a local telephone company which is a 
private company but which has public service requirements such as 
universal telephone service.
  So, Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate that we should be 
working on reinventing and privatizing the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and public broadcasting in general. The Vice President, 
after all, asks that Government be reinvented and that we try to 
privatize certain agencies.
  But I would strongly disagree with those who say we are trying to 
kill Barney or we are trying to kill children's programming. That is 
just not true. Or that we are trying to kill individual States' public 
broadcast programs. That is simply not true. What we are trying to do 
is to be inventive.
  We are facing a budgetary crisis of profound proportions. Let's face 
it: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting most likely at least will 
receive a cut. We are in a situation where I think they would be 
grateful for ideas on how they could make more money. One of those is 
getting a percentage of the program revenues. Presently we have a lot 
of people making a lot of money from public broadcasting while the 
taxpayers don't share the wealth.
  Also, Mr. President, the corporation has to look at its distribution 
of funds. I do not think my State of South Dakota gets a very good 
deal, very frankly. Much is made of $1.7 million in Federal funds that 
is sent to South Dakota. But the State legislature, individual 
contributors, and corporate grants provide an overwhelming majority of 
the funding.
  If we take a look at where some of the money goes, one station in New 
York gets about $20 million from Federal taxpayers. That is not the 
State of New York, that is one station. That station has executives 
earning between $200,000 and $400,000 a year.
  We have the so-called Children's Television Workshop, which has, as 
Senator Dole has pointed out on this floor, paid salaries of between 
$400,000 and $600,000 a year. Those are taxpayers funds.
  ``Well,'' they say, ``we take that money out of what is 
contributed.'' But it all comes out of the same pot.
  Now, I am not against people getting rich. I am not against people in 
the private sector getting high salaries, but these folks wrap 
themselves in the cloak of public service. They wrap themselves in the 
clothes of one serving the public and then collect taxpayers' money. 
Meanwhile, our States that are told, ``You are so lucky to get $1.7 
million, you are so lucky, you should be so grateful.''
  If you really look into it, most of the money is going to a small 
public broadcasting clique--an east coast and inside-the-beltway gang.
  I think the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting acted 
correctly the other day when it voted to start getting a percentage of 
profits from the programs and related products. They should have done 
it long ago. I do not think they would have done it if it were not for 
the pressure from people such as myself on the Senate floor and 
elsewhere. The taxpayers should get some relief. I am going to make 
sure they do.
  There was a 1981-to-1984 study about privatizing public broadcasting 
and getting revenue from more commercial advertising. Make no mistake 
about it, there are ads today on public radio and television. Granted, 
they are called by the code word, ``underwriting,'' but they are ads 
just the same. This study found that the viewers were not offended by 
having ads at the beginning and end of programming or even more 
extensive ads. This is one source of revenue.
  There are the programming rights. That is another source of revenue. 
There is the chance to interact with the information highway. That is 
still another potential source of revenue. So, I think the public 
broadcasting executives should be creative in going 
[[Page S1756]] out and finding new sources of revenue and new sources 
of opportunity and, also, new sources of material.
  I have been troubled by the fact that I think taxpayers' money is 
being used to lobby for more taxpayers' money. There is a nationwide 
grassroots program to contact your Congressman to be sure to continue 
full funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is being 
done, in part, with Federal money, in my opinion. If you ask, they say, 
these are our affiliates doing this and they are doing it with money 
that is contributed in these beg-a-thons, money being contributed 
privately. But the contributors are not told that. They are told this 
is listener-supported radio and TV. They are not told part of their 
money will be used to lobby for Federal money. They should be told, 
``This is a taxpayer-supported channel. We get some private 
contributions but much of it is taxpayer supported, both State and 
Federal.'' There should be honesty in these beg-a-thons.
  But, also, let us be very careful about this business of lobbying for 
more Federal money with Federal money. Here we have a very 
sophisticated group concentrated in Boston, New York, and Washington, 
DC, that is doing so. They are not saying, ``Senator Pressler wants to 
keep public radio and TV at the State level.'' They are saying, 
``Anybody who wants to change anything is trying to kill public radio 
and TV.''
  I submit that public broadcasting will be stronger when it is 
reinvented and privatized. I submit that the entire public broadcasting 
system has become bureaucratic, inefficient, and wasteful. Taxpayers 
around the country would be amazed at how much money is being wasted.
  The 20th Century Fund did a study in which they found that 75 cents 
of every $1 in public TV is spent on overhead. That has not been 
rebutted. So those who serve on the oversight committees--and I chair 
the Commerce Committee, which has a duty to conduct oversight over the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting--it is our job to dig into things, 
to make suggestions, maybe to take some heat. But it is not the job of 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the other public 
broadcasting entities to put false information out across the country. 
They are wrong when they say that people who are required to make 
budget cuts and suggest ways to reinvent the system are trying to kill 
local public broadcasting. That is not the case.
  There was local public broadcasting before the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and its glut of Federal funding ever came along. In fact, 
some people feel we would have a stronger set of local public stations 
had the national Corporation for Public Broadcasting never been created 
in 1967.
  We should think about that. Here we have a very intelligent, 
sophisticated, lobbying campaign that has people scared that their 
public broadcasting channels will be shut off if this group here in 
Washington, DC, does not get their Federal money. That is not true. 
That is not true at all. In fact, my State may well be better off in a 
reinvented or privatized system of public broadcasting. That is true of 
most States.
  Again, I congratulate the CPB board for doing what they should have 
done long ago, getting a percentage of the program and product profits. 
That will provide them with a good deal of revenue. It might provide 
more revenue than they have ever gotten from the Federal Government, 
and that would not bother me a bit. I hope they continue to make such 
steps.
  I hope public broadcasting executives have many meetings with the 
companies that are on the information superhighway, ranging from local 
telephone companies to cable companies to long distance companies to 
computer companies, to see what interrelation there can be.
  Finally, I would like to know what is public broadcasting's own plan 
to reinvent itself? So far it seems only to be to get more Federal 
money, to stay just as things are, not to make any changes, and of 
course to be the self-appointed arbiters of American culture. But I am 
asking them to roll up their sleeves, get out, listen to a few people, 
and not expect increases in Federal funding because it will not be 
coming.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the chairman for allowing 
me to speak at this point.


                          ____________________