[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E247-E248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PUBLIC BROADCASTING SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                            HON. JACK FIELDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 28, 1996

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that 
will start public broadcasting on the road to self-sufficiency. This 
bill is certainly not the total solution to the challenge that faces 
us. Rather, it is a first step in the process.
  Last year, the House leadership, recognizing the need to cut 
Government spending and balance the budget, challenged public 
broadcasting to find alternative sources of funding for their 
operations. After some initial misgivings the industry responded to 
this challenge with enormous enthusiasm, seeing this not as a threat 
but rather as an opportunity. I have been very impressed with the 
thoughtful and insightful response, and while I cannot agree with all 
of the proposals, it is obvious that there is strong sentiment for 
innovation and change.
  My bill can help to accomplish this move away from Government support 
and ensure that public broadcasting continues to serve the educational 
and entertainment needs of the American public, the purposes for which 
it was established. I believe that the overarching goal of reorganizing 
public broadcasting should be to return to the original concept of 
local, community stations, and funding for these stations should come 
from sources other than the Federal Government. It should come from 
local public subscription, city and State appropriations, sponsorship 
by educational institutions, regional foundations, mergers or local 
marketing agreements with profitable commercial stations, and flexible 
use of spectrum. It should also depend, now more than ever before, on 
the pursuit of innovative ideas and entrepreneurial activities.
  It is now time for public broadcasting to become self-sufficient and 
prepared to compete in the dynamic marketplace of the 21st century. We 
are, therefore, embarking on a historic change from our Government's 
policy, the origins of which date back several decades. Public 
broadcasting, with the help of Federal and State governments, has 
evolved in its 30-year history into a mature industry providing quality 
programming to American viewers. We want a healthy and independent 
future for public television and radio, and it is our responsibility to 
ensure that public broadcasting continues to serve the educational and 
entertainment needs of the public. It is our obligation not only 
because of its inherent value but also because we have decades of 
Government investment to protect.
  Government support for public broadcasting began with Federal 
matching grants to construct educational television facilities in 1962. 
That 5-year program, although helpful, did not address the need for 
long-term financing. It was this financing problem that resulted in the 
establishment of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television in 
1965, which was also funded by private money, this time from the 
Carnegie Foundation. The Carnegie Commission was the immediate catalyst 
for enactment of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. In addition to 
providing needed financing for public television and radio, the act 
created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB]. The act 
attempted to ensure CPB's role in developing an independent educational 
broadcasting system that provided high quality objective and balanced 
services to the local community.
  As the industry has matured, it has been at the forefront of exciting 
innovation, including such things as distance learning, which combines 
television satellite, computer, video disk, and telephone to bring 
greater educational opportunities to students regardless of their 
geographic or economic situation. I believe most people would agree 
that over the years public television has consistently provided high 
quality programming to the American public. From historical series such 
as ``The Civil War'' and ``Baseball'' to the excellent children's 
programming such a ``Barney and Friends'' and ``Sesame Street,'' public 
television has offered interesting, educational, and entertaining 
programs for just about everyone.
  However, public broadcasting is not without its faults or its 
critics. Last Congress, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 
Finance held a hearing that was invaluable in revealing the gross 
inefficiencies of the system. Even some of the system's strongest 
supporters say that it is mismanaged and should realize new operating 
efficiencies through consolidations, automation, joint operating 
agreements, mergers, and other forms of partnerships. Others say that 
the industry has failed to take advantage of revenue sources through 
licensing and merchandising agreements.
  This bill is designed to address many of these failings and correct 
many of the problems. It does so in several ways. First, it gives 
public broadcasting stations additional flexibility and offers new and 
innovative earned income options. For example, in markets where there 
are two overlapping stations, a licensee would be allowed to operate 
one as a commercial station and one as a ``pure'' public broadcasting 
station. The profits from the commercial station would be used to fund 
the second public broadcasting station. Neither station would be 
eligible for grants from CPB. In the case of duopolies, the licensee 
could elect to sell one station, as long as the proceeds from the sale 
go to the retained public broadcasting station. This station would not 
be eligible for CPB grants.
  The bill would also allow VHF and UHF channel swaps. It further 
provides that stations 

[[Page E248]]
voluntarily surrendering their licenses for auction by the FCC would be 
allowed to keep 50 percent of the proceeds. The remainder would go to 
the U.S. Treasury. Under the bill, stations would now be allowed to 
accept compensation for broadcasting programs produced by, at the 
expense of, or furnished by persons other than the station licensee. 
This would allow partnerships with commercial entities. Finally, the 
bill expands the definition of underwriting.
  Second, the bill has as one of its key purposes the elimination of 
redundancies within the entire public broadcasting system, including 
duplicative stations and burdensome bureaucracies. Consequently, CPB is 
prohibited from issuing more than one grant per market to television 
licensees, but is allowed more discretion for radio grants.
  Third, it relieves the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of most of 
the congressionally imposed mandates that have limited CPB's ability to 
function in a sound, business-like manner. The bill eliminates most of 
the congressionally imposed mandates on CPB, including set-asides and 
unnecessary reporting requirements. The intent is to allow CPB to use 
good business judgment in its decisionmaking process and to prepare for 
its eventual privatization. Even after the transition to private non-
profit corporation, CPB would still be required to report to Congress 
annually on the status of the trust fund.
  The bill also changes the way that members of the board of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be selected. Presently, the 
President appoints the members. The bill establishes a selection 
committee composed of the Speaker and minority leader of the House and 
the majority and minority leaders in the Senate to nominate 
individuals, after consultation with the public broadcasting industry, 
with expertise in investment management, corporate finance, 
telecommunications, education, and public broadcasting. The President 
would appoint from this list. Afterward, the board would be appointed 
in accordance with the bylaws of the Corporation.
  Finally, it establishes a public broadcasting national trust fund, 
using revenue to be derived from a now fallow resource, thereby 
ensuring that Government funding will cease. The bill directs the 
Federal Communications Commission to auction vacant noncommercial 
channels and to transfer the proceeds to the trust fund. The bill also 
directs the FCC to ensure that the auction brings in as much revenue as 
possible by moving the cities of licenses, if necessary, while avoiding 
harmful interference. Before transferring auction proceeds to the trust 
fund, the Secretary of the Treasury is required to verify that the fund 
has been established in accordance with the law. CPB would manage the 
trust fund and distribute the income from the corpus. If CPB 
substantially violates the purposes of the law, the corpus would revert 
to the United States. The bill authorizes $250 million in fiscal years 
1998, 1999, and 2000, after which the trust fund would begin to 
dispense income from the corpus to fund public broadcasting.
  This legislation would get the Federal Government out of the business 
of financing public television, but that goal cannot be achieved 
overnight without adversely affecting public radio and television. In 
view of the decades of Federal tax dollars that have been spent to 
ensure a public broadcasting system, the Government has a stake in 
ensuring that public broadcasting survives. I, for one, would not like 
to see decades of Federal funding for public broadcasting go to waste.
  One thing is clear: reforming public broadcasting is a daunting task. 
First, it is a controversial and very emotional issue. Second, it is 
complex. Public broadcasting is composed of different and unique 
components and the solution for one may not necessarily be appropriate 
for the other. Third, the public and those of us in Congress have 
differing views about how to change the current system.
  Despite the difficulty of the job that lies before us, and regardless 
of our views on public radio and television, we can all agree that 
Government money is scarce. The American people expect us to be 
fiscally responsible and examine all federally funded programs. They 
expect us to make the difficult choices about where to cut Federal 
spending. That is what good Government is all about. The American 
public deserves to have the highest quality television and radio 
programs. The approach taken in this bill will allow that fine 
tradition to continue, but this time, without Government funds.

                          ____________________