[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5113-S5115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SELF-FUNDING FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise to speak on a portion of this 
consideration regarding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It has 
been my concern for some time that we could make the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting self-funding, or, if I may use the term, 
privatized, although I think self-funding would be better.
  Presently the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private 
corporation with Federal funding. At the end of their programming each 
day you see it says, ``The Corporation for Public Broadcasting funded 
by the Federal Government''--a private corporation funded by the 
American people.
  I am of the opinion that through a program that I recently presented 
in the Washington Post, the corporation can become private, can become 
self-funding, and it is not necessarily by increasing advertising. It 
is rather by digitizing, compressing its programming, and making it 
available for sale to such outlets as Arts and Entertainment, to the 
Learning Channel, to the History Channel, and to the hundreds of new 
video dial tone channels that are springing up across the country from 
the regional telephone companies.
  Also, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its public 
broadcasting entities could get a great deal larger percentage of the 
things that appear on the free public platform. They have already voted 
to start getting a larger percentage of that.
  For example, whether it is Barney, or whether it is Bill Moyers' 
Journal, or whatever else, if there is money made from the sale of 
tapes of that show and paraphernalia, I think the taxpayers ought to be 
entitled to 20 percent or 30 percent of it--or maybe more--whatever 
they can negotiate in a businesslike way.
  In addition, public broadcasting will be digitizing and compressing 
parts of its spectrum, and they can rent part of that spectrum or sell 
it or use it in some way, and they can have far more money than they 
have now.
  So my point is, Madam President, that the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and the other public broadcasting entities are sitting on 
a treasure trove that they can utilize. The taxpayers of this country 
do not have to subsidize them. They can do just as well. They can 
provide more money to rural radio and TV and more money to children's 
programming than they are now.
  If this body wishes, when it comes to zeroing out and to replacing 
over a 3-year period or 2-year period their moneys, they can place a 
requirement for certain rural programming and for children's 
programming--just as when Conrail was privatized on this Senate floor 
and we placed certain covenants or requirements on Conrail to provide 
certain local service, just as we require airlines to provide certain 
safety for the public, just as we require that other private companies 
meet service requirements, such as the regional telephone companies who 
have a universal fund to provide long-distance services in rural areas 
and small towns. All of this can be done.
  Vice President Gore talked about reinventing and privatizing. I think 
and have thought that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the 
Public Broadcasting Service, and National Public Radio can do so.
  Madam President, the defenders of the status quo have waged a 
nationwide campaign that is very misleading. They say that Senator 
Pressler and others are out to kill Big Bird or out to kill rural 
radio. Is it not strange that they do not talk about cutting anything 
inside the beltway? When we look at the National Public Radio building 
and its equipment; at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its 
salaries; at the nonprofit organizations that have sprung up alongside 
that receive their grants and which in turn pay salaries two and three 
times higher than Senators make--we should remember that this is 
taxpayers' money.
  So I join in this effort that is on the Senate floor, and also I am 
working with the Budget Committee to have a 3-year plan to phase out 
the Federal subsidy.
  Earlier this year, Madam President, there was some controversy about 
a questionnaire that I sent to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
As chairman of the oversight committee, I asked a lot of questions 
about where and how the money moved. In my State of South Dakota, we 
get $1.7 million from Washington, DC, but instantly have to send over 
$1 million back for programming. My State and small rural States should 
be able to shop around. Maybe they would want to buy some digitized 
compressed programming from Arts and Entertainment, or from 
Nickelodeon. This children's programming is marketed to France, 
incidentally, and dubbed. It is about the only cultural import the 
French welcome, educational children's programming made privately.
  The point of the whole matter is that there are plenty of 
opportunities for public broadcasting to make money, and it is most 
unfortunate that they are not carrying that out. But they put forth the 
argument that we are trying to take away children's programming and 
rural radio. That is not true.
  In my State, our State legislature voted down a resolution urging 
that more Federal moneys be sought for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting because people understand that there is a very misleading 
campaign underway here. My State is one of those that has the most 
rural radio perhaps of all.
  Let me say, Madam President, that I have contributed every year to 
public broadcasting, long before this debate. I contributed again this 
year because I think it has its place. But those small States are not 
getting their fair share under the present formulas that are used. And 
far more of the moneys go to grants to their favorite foundations and 
nonprofit groups here inside the beltway that pay salaries up to 
$750,000 a year as Senator Dole published on this Senate floor, and 
other salaries of $450,000, and so forth. Those are taxpayers' dollars, 
incidentally.
  So the next time someone comes up to me and says, ``Ah, you are 
against rural radio,'' I would say to them that one salary here paid at 
the favorite foundations of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 
greater than my whole State gets in a year's time.
  So let us put things into perspective. The Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and its related entities here inside the beltway have 
become a bloated bureaucracy, and reform is needed.
  They are making some reforms now, and I commend them for those 
reforms. One of the reforms was that they voted 
[[Page S5114]] to start getting a percentage of those items that appear 
and make profits on the free public platform that is provided. Another 
reform that they are making, I believe, is that they are starting to 
learn to partner with the information superhighway to compress and 
digitize their programming and sell it, or swap it, and that is 
something that I have advocated for a long time. So I think what will 
come out of this is a better Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a 
better public TV and radio in this country.
  So far as the questions that I submitted, they are the same questions 
that every broadcaster in this country must answer every year regarding 
minority hiring, but public broadcasting somehow feels they are exempt 
from it. They have the stories written in the paper that I asked about 
the ethnicity and race of employees. That is what every broadcaster in 
this country must answer every year, and every small businessman who 
has contracts with the Federal Government can be called upon to produce 
at any time. And they also, if questioned, have to say who the 
minorities are. It is alleged, though I cannot prove it or disprove it, 
that they do not meet their minority hiring requirements with permanent 
employees. They do it with part-time employees. A small businessman in 
my State can be prosecuted for doing that, but they think they are 
exempt from responding to the committee that has oversight, apparently. 
So I find that the attitude there is very unusual.
  Now, I have another interesting thing that I learned, which is that 
the reporters who wrote about this for the New York Times and the 
Washington Post, coincidentally, are paid to appear on public 
television, although they did not say that in their stories. It is hard 
to get a story correct. I do want to commend the Post though. They did 
allow me to publish an op-ed that laid out my point of view after I met 
with the board of editors of the Washington Post.
  I think what we have is a very arrogant system, from a management 
point of view, that has been built up in the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. I never really looked into it until I became chairman of 
the committee this year. That is my job. That is what I am supposed to 
do. But they are forward-funded through next year. I think the House of 
Representatives has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork to 
phase out the Federal funding as they phase in these self-funding 
devices. That is a positive thing. But the Corporation and its allies 
have run a misleading campaign around the country telling people that 
those Republicans are out to kill Big Bird and are out to shut off 
rural radio. That is simply not true.
  Madam President, there are many reasons that the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting was created in 1967. But public radio and TV 
existed before that. I gave my first speech in a debate at the 
University of South Dakota on public television in 1963 before we ever 
had the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And so I join with my 
colleagues here on the Senate floor, and I hope I can say I join with 
the leadership of public broadcasting in this country, to move toward a 
better system, a system not so bloated with bureaucracy.
  In our States, our State legislatures pay most of the costs of our 
public radio and television. Individual contributors also, such as 
myself and, I might add, Newt Gingrich, have contributed to public 
radio and TV. The State legislatures pay for most of the public radio 
and television in this country. The corporation was founded so there 
would be a national clearing house, so to speak, and it did a lot of 
good things. But we have now entered an age where it has been proved 
that this quality programming can be marketed, and their programming 
could be marketed. It does not need to mean more ads.
  Incidentally, public radio and TV in many cases has more revenue from 
ads than does commercial radio and TV in many markets. That is another 
unknown. They call them enhanced underwriting, but they are 
advertisements, and that is fine with me. I think we should analyze the 
thing as it really is. In the oversight committee, we should look at 
the facts as they really are, and so for that reason I join in efforts 
here on this floor to do what the House of Representatives has done, to 
start a phaseout over a 3-year period of the moneys, of the taxpayers' 
money. To replace that, there is an abundance, a treasure trove from 
which it can be done.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have 
printed in the Record my op-ed that was published in the Washington 
Post that deals with the subject of how public broadcasting can become 
self-financing.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1995]

                       Reality-Based Broadcasting

                      (By Senator 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 
     television 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 agreement 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 market 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 
     [[Page S5115]] 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.
    Clinton and Gore Try to Set Back Telecommunications Competition

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, on a second subject, I was very 
disappointed this morning in a conversation with Vice President Gore to 
learn that the administration is opposed to my telecommunications bill 
and that the present plan is to veto that bill if it were to pass. I 
say that because I believe in this Chamber there would be 85 to 90 
votes for the telecommunications bill today if it came up for a vote.
  The Vice President said the administration was opposing it for three 
reasons. First, because they do not like the cable provisions; second, 
because they do not like the lack of a merger prohibition on regional 
telephone and cable companies; and third, because they would like to 
have a Justice Department review, in addition to an FCC review, in 
determining when Bell companies can enter the long-distance and 
manufacturing markets.
  Madam President, we have worked out these matters. Every Democrat on 
the Commerce Committee voted for this bill. The administration did not 
avail itself of the opportunity to come up here during all the long 
negotiations and let us know of their strong feelings. Then all of a 
sudden the Vice President is working against having the bill brought 
up--and announces that the administration is opposed to it. This comes 
after we have made substantial accommodations and we have worked out 
the cable and long distance issues.
  For example, with regard to cable rate deregulation, the basic tier 
remains regulated in the bill. The upper tier is deregulated with a 
bad-actor proviso--that is, rate regulation would be possible if a 
cable operator charges rates which are substantially above the national 
average. So there is consumer protection on the cable issue.
  And then after 2 or 3 years, or when there is at least 15 percent of 
DBS--direct broadcast satellite--in a market, basic cable is 
deregulated. Or when there is video dialtone service present in a 
market, basic cable would be deregulated. The Vice President feels 
strongly that this is inappropriate. But this represents a compromise 
that was worked out between Republicans and Democrats. In fact, every 
Democrat on the Commerce Committee voted for it. The committee 
overwhelmingly approved the bill by a 17-to-2 margin.
  The next objection was on cable and telephone company mergers. The 
decision not to put that in was agreed to on both sides of the aisle. 
The proposal to limit cable and telephone company acquisitions, mergers 
or joint ventures is redundant, as current law--Hart, Scott, Rodino--
already provides antitrust scrutiny in this area.
  Regarding the Justice Department, we already have the FCC, with 
public interest and competitive checklist language, reviewing this. 
There is no need for a second review by the Justice Department. We are 
repealing the MFJ. That is the whole idea of this bill, to replace the 
courts with congressional action. The Justice Department could still 
bring antitrust action. They have that power on any aspect of American 
business.
  So I am strongly in disagreement with the Vice President's 
assessment. And I am very saddened by it because it means, as a result 
of that, we will not be bringing my bill up this week. We will bring it 
up early after we come back. But I am fearful that during that time 
this bill will be picked apart by the various interests. It is the sort 
of bill where we had good momentum until the administration opposed it 
and began working against it here, working against its being brought 
up. I ask my colleagues from the Democratic side to contact the Vice 
President and to persuade him and the administration that this is a 
good bill. It is the best bill we are going to get.
 And it is supported across the country.

  I am very worried and saddened at the developments that have occurred 
here. I am determined to go forward. We will get the bill up in April 
or May. We will proceed with it. This body will vote for it 
overwhelmingly, and should vote for it.
  All the staffs on both sides of the aisle have been involved. I do 
not think any bill has ever had more consultation or more staff work--
without a day off, from Christmas Day, literally--on this bill.
  It has been an open, inclusive process. The last time, people 
complained that nobody knew what was in the telecommunications bill; 
there was not enough consultation. So we had meetings all day and all 
night, even Saturday and Sunday, with staff from Members on both sides 
who were interested. So everyone had their input--except the 
administration, which never made a peep. Now, suddenly, the 
administration is actively working to encourage Democratic Members to 
contact the minority leader's office to keep it from being brought up. 
And that saddens me a great deal.
  I hope, Madam President, that this is merely a delay. We will fight 
on with this piece of legislation. Probably no piece of legislation 
this year has been more widely discussed and consulted about. All 100 
Members of the Senate have been involved in some way. We are ready to 
go. The bill is filed. The report is filed. The committee has voted. It 
has amendments added to it. We need to bring it up and vote amendments 
on the floor. The country needs this bill.
  Now, what will happen if we do not pass this bill? It will reduce 
jobs and hurt the United States.
  This bill has been called a $2 trillion bill by George Gilder because 
it will cause an explosion of new activity in telecommunications. It 
will boost our exports. It will cause a number of new devices to be 
distributed to the American people.
  Presently, we have very little of the so-called information 
superhighway here. Everybody talks about it. We have cellular phones, 
some computer Internet, and we have cable TV. But that is all. Most 
people are not on the information superhighway and they will not be 
until we pass this bill.
  Otherwise, the people who invest in telecommunications are paralyzed, 
waiting for a roadmap, waiting for the ground rules. In fact, many 
people who invest in telecommunications are investing in Europe because 
they cannot get approval, because we have economic apartheid of the 
regional Bells, economic apartheid of the long-distance companies, and 
so forth.
  So I call upon this administration to listen to the Democrats in this 
body and to the Republicans, and not to obstruct this bill. Indeed, we 
will bring it up for a vote. We will get 85 votes on final passage on 
this bill, or more.
  It is very strange. In my time in Congress, in my 21 years, I have 
never seen a situation where a committee votes out a bill with all the 
members of the President's party voting for it, and then the 
administration, which has been absent, announces it is opposed to it 
and will veto it--without, apparently, consulting with any of the 
members of that committee. That is very, very strange.
  Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. But I do not think I have 
ever seen anything like that happen before. I think that there is 
something going on in Presidential politics or something that I am not 
quite a party to. I find it very disappointing and very strange.
  But let me say to all the supporters of the bill not to lose faith. 
We will carry on. We will pass it. It is going to be tough.
  I do not think, in the end, the President will veto it if it is in 
the light of day and when the country understands what is in it. But if 
he does, we will override the veto in both Houses, because the votes 
are there.
  Madam President, I thank you very much for the floor. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.




                          ____________________