[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3663-S3664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       REALITY-BASED BROADCASTING

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to 
an article in this morning's Washington Post that I shall place in the 
Record. It is an op-ed written by myself. It involves the subject of 
how public broadcasting could become self-sufficient.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, March 8, 1995]

                       Reality-Based Broadcasting

                          (By Larry Pressler)

       ``Public broadcasting is under attack!'' ``Congress wants 
     to kill Big Bird!'' These and other alarmist cries have been 
     common in recent weeks. The problem is they are lies. That's 
     right, lies. I tried to conceive of a more polite way to say 
     it. I could not. With rare exceptions the press largely has 
     ignored the specifics of the position taken by members of 
     Congress seeking to reinvent public broadcasting.
       I have struggled to make my position clear. Yet the 
     misrepresentations continue. I am convinced many simply do 
     not care to report the facts--facts they do not find as 
     interesting as the scenarios they create. That is too bad. 
     The average American taxpayer would find the facts extremely 
     interesting.
       As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation. I am not seeking to destroy public 
     televisions and radio. I am a strong supporter of public 
     broadcasting, both in my home state of South Dakota and 
     nationally. Pull the plug? Absolutely not. Rather, my plan 
     would expand opportunities and save taxpayer dollars.
       Why do I seek change? Because times have changed. Today's 
     electronic media are vastly different from those of the 
     1960s, when the current system of federal subsidies for 
     public broadcasting was established. The old theory of 
     ``market failure'' for educational programming is completely 
     untenable in today's environment. Educational and cultural 
     programs can and do make profits when their quality is good 
     and marketing astute. The only money losers in today's 
     arrangement are the taxpayers.
       A Feb. 24 Post editorial stated it is time for the public 
     broadcasting industry to face reality. The issue no longer 
     should be whether federal subsidies for public broadcasting 
     will be cut. I could not agree more. Congress now is debating 
     when and how much. The House Appropriations subcommittee on 
     labor, health and human services already has cut the public 
     broadcasting budget. The House leadership promises more to 
     come. I fully expect the Senate to follow suit.
       Instead of crying over public cash, it would be more 
     prudent for public broadcasting executives to use their 
     talents and resources developing the numerous potential 
     sources of revenue available to replace the federal subsidy 
     rather than continuing to fan the flames of fear and 
     exaggeration. As captains of a major corporation, their 
     responsibilities should be clear. The Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR) and the 
     Public Broadcasting System (PBS) need to learn to stand on 
     their own feet.
       To help in that effort, I recently provided the chairman of 
     the board of CPB with a plan to end its dependency on federal 
     welfare in three years. Ideas to end CPB's addiction to 
     taxpayer dollars include:


                           Profits from sales

       CPB should renegotiate sales agreements and improve future 
     agreements to get a larger share of the sales of toys, books, 
     clothing and other products based on its programming. In 
     1990, Barney-related products retailed at $1 billion! Steps 
     have been taken by the CPB board to improve its share of such 
     sales. More should be done.


                    Make the most of new technology

       Use of new compressed digitization technology would permit 
     existing noncommercial licensees to expand to four or five 
     channels where once they had only one. Public broadcasting 
     stations could rent, sell or make use of the additional 
     channels for other telecommunications and information 
     services.


                             End redundancy

       At least one-quarter of public television stations overlap 
     other public television stations' signal areas. Public radio 
     also suffers from the inefficiencies of redundancy. Ending 
     this overlap and selling the excess broadcast spectrum would 
     provide substantial revenues to public broadcasting.


                            Switch channels

       Moving public television stations from costly VHF channels 
     to less costly UHF channels in certain markets would provide 
     a substantial source of new revenue.


                  Team with other information services

       CPB could increase commercial arrangements in the computer 
     software markets and with on-line services.
       These are only a few of the ways in which the CPB could 
     reinvent itself into a self-sufficient corporation for the 
     '90s and, indeed, for the next century. Ending federal 
     dependency does not end public broadcasting. Today's subsidy 
     amounts to only 14 percent of the industry's spending! 
     Indeed, my current plan asks the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting to end its dependency on federal welfare in 
     three years--that's one year more than what current proposals 
     would give welfare recipients to get off federal assistance.
       It would be tragic if the public broadcasting industry 
     ignores its responsibilities when the federal budget is in 
     crisis. It also would be tragic if the industry spurns 
     exciting opportunities in new markets and technologies. 
     Perhaps most tragic of all, however, would be continued 
     retrenchment from public broadcasting executives crying, ``It 
     can't be done.'' It can be done. It should be done.

   [[Page S3664]] Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have felt strongly 
that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does not need Federal 
dollars. I serve as chairman of the committee that oversees the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The public broadcasting sits on a 
treasure trove of opportunities that will enable it to become self-
sufficient.
  I have had some disagreements with the Washington Post over the 
reporting on this issue, and I thank them for running my article this 
morning. My article explains five ways public broadcasting on a 
national level can be funded without taxpayers' dollars.
  Now, remember that most State public radio and TV organizations are 
funded by State legislatures and by contributors. My concerns are about 
inside-the-beltway operations here, where a system has sprung up that I 
feel is self-serving. A significant amount of Federal funds does not 
get out to the States. Federal money that is sent out ends up coming 
right back to Washington.
  In my op-ed, I point out that there are a number of ways that 
national public broadcasting can make money. No. 1, they can get a 
higher percentage of ancillary sales of products based on programs that 
appear on taxpayer-funded public broadcasting. They can also market 
much of their product through digital compression, and making 
programming available for sale through other parts of the information 
superhighway.
  They can also sell or rent some of their spectrum in signal areas 
where there is redundancy and overlap. Indeed, digital compression also 
frees up spectrum that could be rented or sold for other 
telecommunications and information services. They already have what 
they call enhancements--others might call them advertisements--and they 
have fundraisers.
  Mr. President, I support public broadcasting. I have been a 
contributor to public broadcasting in the past. My colleague in the 
House, Newt Gingrich, also has assisted a public broadcasting station 
in his home State of Georgia during a recent fundraising drive. But 
what this Senator is concerned about--and I speak only for myself--is 
the inside-the-beltway system that has grown up.
  That money is not getting out to the States' public broadcast radio 
and TV. It is sent out, but much of it gets sent right back to 
Washington to pay for PBS or NPR programming. I would rather they have 
more options. Some might want to buy programming from the Learning 
channel or Arts and Entertainment or the Disney Channel or the History 
channel. There is a lot of this kind of programming being made for 
profit, and I commend them.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will take 
note of this article. Because regardless of my position on this issue, 
even the Washington Post has also pointed out in another editorial that 
the days when public broadcasting is funded by the Federal Government 
are coming to an end. I have suggested five ways they can fund 
themselves without Federal assistance.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________