[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    REINVENTING PUBLIC BROADCASTING

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, another thoughtful voice has joined the 
debate in favor of re-inventing public broadcasting. Jack Kemp has 
written an article, published in today's Wall Street Journal, making 
the case that public broadcasting can be re-invented and become self-
funding. This would be a win-win proposition for taxpayers, for 
television and radio audiences, and for the public broadcasting 
industry.
  Secretary Kemp's analysis is timely, because through the rescission 
bill Congress has an opportunity to begin an orderly and reasonable 
phasing out of Federal subsidies for public broadcasting. I support the 
approach of the House of Representatives, to begin phasing out the 
subsidies in a significant measure, now.
  Secretary Kemp just this week has been named chairman of the new 
National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. This is by 
appointment of Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich. Secretary 
Kemp is superbly qualified for this position. I offer Secretary Kemp my 
hearty congratulations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
Secretary Kemp's article, entitled ``Privatizing PBS Doesn't Mean 
Killing Big Bird,'' from today's Wall Street Journal.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                The Wall Street Journal , April 5, 1995

             Privatizing PBS Doesn't Mean Killing Big Bird

                           (By Jack F. Kemp)

       Politics doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, even when it 
     comes to budget cutting--and especially when it comes to as 
     contentious an issue as cutting the public television budget. 
     I believe it's possible to find a compromise where both sides 
     of this debate emerge winners and happy.
       First, let's look at the impasse we seem to have reached in 
     Congress. On the one hand, we have a new generation of 
     Republicans who are absolutely serious when they talk about 
     limiting the size, scope and power of the federal government. 
     For these ``neo-Federalists,'' it isn't enough that a program 
     have some positive benefits or a committed political 
     constituency (almost all programs do); there must be a 
     compelling reason why the federal government, as opposed to 
     state and local governments, or the private sector, is 
     involved. As they have said, no domestic program, except 
     Social Security, will be exempt from scrutiny.
       Energizing the neo-federalists is a budget deficit that 
     they have claimed they could get under control, when no one 
     else could--and to a great extent, they realize that their 
     political legitimacy rides on making good on their promise. 
     The almost $300 million yearly subsidy to the Corporation for 
     Public Broadcasting (CPB) will add up to almost a billion 
     dollars over the next three years. That's not chicken feed, 
     even for Big Bird.
       On the other hand, there are large numbers of people inside 
     and outside Congress who value public broadcasting. Leaving 
     aside for a moment questions of political bias, they have for 
     many years found on the PBS stations quality programming that 
     is hard to find elsewhere. those with young children 
     especially value what I would call the ``trust factor,'' the 
     fact that one can leave one's children watching PBS without 
     having to constantly monitor the TV for fear that they will 
     be exposed to the kind of mind-numbing violence so common on 
     the other stations. For adults, the ``MacNeil-Lehrer 
     Newshour'' provides a similar respite from ``sound-bite'' 
     news programs.
       What is the solution? It lies, as it so often does, in a 
     growing, technologically expanding private sector--in a 
     future that is bigger than the present, where one person 
     doesn't have to lose for another to gain. Where both sides 
     can be winners.
       The following is a brief sketch of how the CPB can be 
     privatized in such a way that it emerges stronger, healthier 
     and in a better position to continue the kinds of quality 
     programs that many admire it for.
       It must first be stressed that ``privatization'' does not 
     mean ``extinction.'' Far from it. Look at Britain's 
     experience: British Airways, British Telecom and British 
     Petroleum are good examples. In our own country, Conrail has 
     benefited from privatization. Privatization is the new rage 
     in our nation's cities and towns because local governments 
     have found that services are often delivered better when they 
     are transferred back to the private sector.
       The fact is, as many on the side of public broadcasting 
     concede, the CPB, like most government-funded agencies, has 
     its share of waste and redundancy. An analysis by the 
     Twentieth Century Fund found that 75% of its budget went to 
     overhead (including inflated executive salaries). The most 
     expensive, and least necessary, expenses are the number of 
     stations that carry its programming. ABC, the largest 
     network, has 221 stations. NBC has 213. CBS and Fox have 208 
     and 201 stations, with sometimes as many as four or five 
     signals serving essentially the same market.
       As part of any privatization scheme, CPB should be asked to 
     choose a core group of, say, 160 stations that would cover 
     the entire country. All other stations would have the 
     opportunity to ``merge'' into the core station that served 
     their market. PBS could shift the licenses of the ``non-
     core'' stations to commercial usage and auction them off to 
     the highest bidder. The proceeds would go to a National 
     Programming Endowment that would be administered by PBS and 
     used to make the network self-sustaining.
       Pro-PBSers should realize that spectrum auctions are no 
     small potatoes. Even with the current technology, PBS could 
     garner some $2 billion from auctioning off its redundant 
     stations. But the technology is changing, making each one of 
     these station's signals potentially many times more valuable. 
     Meanwhile, the market is getting more competitive as the 
     newly created networks of United Paramount and Warner Bros. 
     scramble to pick up affiliates--and that pushes value up, 
     too.
       A conservatively estimated endowment of $2 billion would 
     eliminate PBS's need for federal subsidies. CPB--which 
     currently administers government subsidies to PBS--would no 
     longer need to exist, eliminating an expensive layer of 
     bureaucracy. Certainly, PBS's cushy executive salaries would 
     have to be trimmed to be more in line with the private 
     sector, but each core station would receive increased 
     membership contributions (from the redundant ``non-core'' 
     stations that have been eliminated), as well as corporate and 
     foundation grants. Meanwhile, PBS would, by dint of 
     necessity, become entrepreneurial by developing and owning 
     shows that it would sell around the world, as well as 
     merchandising rights to its children's productions (an area 
     of funding that officials admit they have not taken proper 
     advantage of).
       Will there be resistance to this plan? Yes, by those who 
     distrust the private sector, no matter what. And by those 
     politicians who like having a PBS station in their district 
     that is required to carry local school board or city council 
     meetings, giving incumbents a free platform. But for those 
     who honestly want to cut the budget deficit, and for those 
     who care about the future of PBS, this is a plan that makes 
     everyone a winner.
     

                          ____________________