[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2802-H2805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHICH WAY AMERICA? ONE DOLLAR AND NINE CENTS A PERSON FOR PUBLIC TV OR
ZERO DOLLARS AND A WASTELAND?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, whenever a measure that affects a broad
spectrum of America comes before the House, our offices are inundated
with calls, letters, and telegrams. The proposed budget cuts to the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB], National Public Radio [NPR],
and the Public Broadcasting System [PBS] have sparked just such an
outpouring. While we are all familiar with the various letter-writing
campaigns that produce mail bags full of mass-produced--usually
computerized here in Washington--letters and cards, this has not been
my experience with those who write to tell of their support for funding
public television and public radio. What I have received is letter
after letter--personally conceived and written--each telling how the
proposed budget cuts would affect them. As we all know, these are the
ones that touch our heart and our conscience.
What these letters demonstrate is that public broadcasting opens the
world to its listeners and viewers in a way that commercial radio and
television have never been able to do. The letters show that funding
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not an arts issue, nor
one of entertainment or communications. It is far broader. The letters
I have received tell me that funding for public television and radio is
a seniors issue--an education issue--a children's issue--a community
issue.
Most important, these letters are the voices of public broadcasting's
viewers and listeners. They are the voices of America.
As for seniors, let's start with Mrs. Alta Valiton, 81 years of age,
a resident of Long Beach, who observes that she:
Has been watching TV from its beginning. In some ways it
has deteriorated, giving much time to sitcom after sitcom and
shows appealing to the uneducated, but there is always public
television to bring a breath of fresh air and mental exercise
and aesthetic pleasure. What would our lives be without the
Nature Series, the National Geographic features, and the
great music--the Met, the concerts by the great trio of men
singers, the Christmas Day program from the [Los Angeles]
Music Center, and the scientific programs. Need I go on?
She closes.
Or Mr. Harold Weir, a 68-year-old from Downey, who wrote:
I am retired and living on a very limited income. I cannot
afford cable TV. PBS is virtually the only TV channel I
watch, other than for local news.
Mrs. Bernice Van Steenberg, another Long Beach senior, says:
PBS is my favorite station and I am not an elite, wealthy
person. I'm a senior citizen on a limited income who doesn't
have cable TV and who relies on the good programs PBS
presents. I'd be lost without PBS.
These voices are also experienced parents who know the value that
public broadcasting has brought to their children over the years. Mr.
and Mrs. Raymond Collins of Long Beach recalled:
Because of ``Sesame Street,'' the ``Electric Company,''
``Mr. Rogers,'' and many other programs of the early to late
1970's, our son Philip--who is now 22--was able to read and
count quite well before he began grade school. It was the
only period since first having a television set
in our home that we were able to watch daytime TV--we'd
watch with Philip--without becoming bored, agitated, and
having to turn the set off. I wonder how we would survive
without public television.
And, an alumni viewer of such shows as ``Sesame Street' and ``Mr.
Roger's Neighborhood''--Dr. Gregory K. Hong of Bellflower--noted:
* * * those are the programs that I watched to learn
English when our family immigrated to America twenty some
years ago.
These voices are typical of the millions of people who enjoy and
benefit from public broadcasting. With national public radio, for
instance, almost 16 million people listen over the course of a week--
that is 1 in every 10 adults in America. This audience has almost
doubled in the last 10 years to include people from all walks of life.
Many radio listeners work in a professional or managerial occupation;
one out of every four works in a clerical, technical, or sales
position.
Some say that shows elitism. What nonsense. More than half of public
radio listeners are not college graduates, and 48 percent live in
households with combined annual incomes below $40,000 per year. My
letters confirm this. Grandparent R.M. Dunbar of Long Beach wrote me to
say that:
I'm not one of the elite that someone said all public
television watchers are--I'm just a person who became full to
the brim with soap operas and lousy sitcoms.
Long Beach residents Jim and Pat Bliss agree:
We have heard public broadcasting's fans
described as an elite. Not so; if we were an elite group,
we would buy cassettes to entertain us en route to work,
hire someone else to do those mindless chores, and pay the
heavy subscription rates required for cable TV.
Public television viewers and public radio listeners are not just
listening to entertainment; they are receiving programming that is
enhancing the quality of their lives and that of their communities.
Mrs. Shirley Freedland of Long Beach summed up this aspect rather
dramatically: ``Without PBS our brains will shrivel up and die.''
Across the country, public broadcasting is serving Americans. In
Huntington Beach, CA, Channel 50, KOCE-TV offers teacher training
workshops and television specials in both English and Spanish designed
to promote parenting skills such as helping with homework and drug
abuse prevention.
Mr. Speaker, a decade ago, I recall offering the first TV course of
``Congress: We the People'' over Channel 50. The public-spirited
channel has a long record of bringing first rate educational
programming to Southern Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The community
colleges of Orange County have been pioneers in developing educational
programming.
After the devastating Northridge earthquake last year, KCET-TV in Los
Angeles--the region's premier public TV station--taped programs that
reassured children and helped them to deal with the chaos around them.
In Gainsville, FL, WUFT-FM radio provides a 24-hour reading service for
the blind. In Evansville, IN, WNIN installed public access terminals in
low-income housing areas so users could access local public libraries,
and newspapers, and use Internet e-mail. Town halls and State
legislature sessions are broadcast over public radio and television
stations in Alaska, Illinois, and Florida. Prairie Public Radio in
North Dakota is planning a native American language program to promote
the continued use and study of native American languages. It is
patterned after a similar public broadcasting program in Hawaii which
has regularly scheduled Hawaiian language shows.
{time} 2200
Karen Johnson, a disabled Long Beach resident, is at home all day.
She subscribes to three southern California public radio stations:
KLON-FM88, KUSC, and KCRW. She can hear ``MacNeil-Lehrer'' and a local
show ``Which Way L.A.?'' which is carried by KCRW, a radio station
based at Santa Monica College. Hosted by Warren Olney, this program has
had a major impact as it daily brings together people across age, race,
and ethnic lines to talk about the key problems facing America's second
largest city and one of the major metropolitan regions in the world.
Karen sums it up well: ``Daytime broadcasting (commercial) is a
wasteland. And commercial news' broadcasts lack any analytic depth.''
[[Page H2803]] In rural America, public broadcasting plays a special
role in linking listeners to their communities and the world at large--
particularly in areas where the local newspaper is published just once
a week and where the economic base cannot support locally generated
commercial broadcasting. Without National Public Radio, for instance,
households in western North Dakota would be without radio news.
Throughout Alaska's Prince William Sound, listeners--who frequently do
not have telephone or television--would lose their messaging service,
their only way to communicate to the outside world. At a reservation in
rural Wisconsin, they would lose the service that records and
broadcasts tribal meetings, the Head Start Program, and health and
environment conferences. In the Chico area--80 miles north of
Sacramento in northern California, there are no large cities--listeners
would no longer be able to earn college credits by taking courses
through the radio. Without public broadcasting in remote Pine Hill, NM,
the area's farmers and ranchers would simply no longer have a radio
station to connect them with the outside world. it would be very, very
tough--if not impossible--for these communities to replace the services
provided to them by public broadcasting.
The services provided by public broadcasting come cheap--a Federal
investment of just $1.09 in Federal funds per year for each American;
let us repeat that, $1.09 for each American. That's 80 cents for public
television and 29 cents for public radio. And this money is a good
investment. In public broadcasting, every dollar in Federal funding
leverages $5 in other funding.
Where do these Federal funds go? Twenty-five percent of the Federal
funds received by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are
designated for public radio. Almost all of that money--93 percent--goes
directly to local public radio stations. At these local stations, the
Federal funds equal about 16 percent of the average public radio
station's operating budget.
This 16 percent may seem to be a rather small amount over which to be
fighting--but let me relate an interesting fact told to me by Judy
Jankowski, general manager of KLON-FM 88--a public radio station that I
brought to California State University, Long Beach, when I was
president. According to Judy, this relatively modest amount of funding
is what banks and other financial institutions use as a basis for loans
to public stations. In other words, without Federal funding, public
broadcasting stations would be severely hampered in their ability to
borrow funds.
Some argue that public broadcasting provides a free, publicly
subsidized platform for the promotion of Barney and ``Seasme Street''-
type products. As the parent of two former ``Sesame Street'' watchers,
I can attest to the fond memories related to the characters on that
show. Friends with young children tell me that it is no different with
Barney, the purple dinosaur. And the popularity of these two programs
over the years has created a great market for products which are
related to the shows.
When ``Sesame Street' went on the air in 1969, the financial
arrangements between the show's products--the nonprofit Children's
Television Workshop--and PBS were not commercial. They continue that
way today. In 1973, the matter of income-sharing was discussed, and PBS
agreed to allow the Children's Television Workshop to retain all of its
income because the workshop agreed that all income from merchandising
would be reinvested in ``Sesame Street'' and other of its productions
and educational activities. This has allowed the workship to produce
four additional major children's series: ``The Electric Company,''
``Square One TV,'' ``3-2-1 Contact'' and ``Ghostwriter.'' Last year,
the workshop received approximately $27 million from its merchandising.
From this amount, $7 million paid the expenses associated with managing
the workship's merchandising business, $13.5 million was reinvested
into the production of ``Sesame Street.'' And, the remainder went to
other workship educational activities.
In the 1980's, PBS and CPB had an income-sharing policy for all
public television programs that brought them a share of revenues.
However, until the ``Barney and Friends'' show, this was not a
significant source of revenue for either PBS or CPB. With the advent of
Barney's merchandising success, PBS and CPB took steps to obtain a
share of the revenues. However, because the Barney show was developed
and is produced by a for-profit organization--the Lyons Groups--the
negotiations and agreements are much more complicated than those with
the nonprofit Children's Television Workshop.
In 1991, the Public Broadcasting System made a commitment to
increasing its children's programming. Because of the long development
process involved in producing a children's TV series--between 12 and 36
months--PBS sought to acquire children's TV shows which were already
being produced. At that time, Barney had appeared on Connecticut Public
Television [CPTV] and briefly on Disney. So, in 1991, PBS, CPB, CPTV,
and the Lyons Group entered into an agreement to bring the show to
public broadcasting. Under the terms of the agreement, PBS and CPB each
committed $1,125,000. Connecticut Public Television agreed to commit
almost $700,000--mainly in-kind services entailed in establishing the
liaison between Lyons and the public television stations airing Barney.
Lyons and Connecticut Public Television had already worked out an
income sharing arrangement which called for CPTV to receive 30 percent
of the share of foreign broadcast and audio and video sales royalties.
However, payments to CPTV would not commence until after Lyons Group
had recouped its initial $2 million investment, as well as costs it
incurred in making sales in the home video and foreign markets.
When PBS and CPB became involved, it was agreed that half of CPTV's
income share would be split between PBS and CPB. Payments to PBS and
CPB would not begin until after CPTV had recouped its initial $700,000
investment. PBS tried to secure a share of the ancillary income with
the Lyons Group, but Lyons refused, citing the $2 million it had
invested in producing ``Barney and Friends.''
CPTV continues to share in the Barney program sales and shares this
money with PBS. To date, public television has received approximately
$600,000 from the Lyons Group. PBS, CPTV, and Lyons have reached an
agreement on future book and audiotape sales. PBS estimates that future
revenues--based on the latest contract with Lyons--will be at least
$2.4 million next year.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is very aware of the growing
limitations on the availability of Federal funds. Its staff members are
working hard to increase other sources of funding so that it can better
support the stations for which it is responsible. But PBS is not a
media investment company. Its mission is to maximize service to the
public and to provide high-quality programs based on sound educational
principles to benefit America's children. If the mission of public
television were strictly to maximize commercial return, the program
selection criteria would be quite different. Selection criteria would
be based not on program nor educational value, but rather on retail
market potential. Put simply, public broadcasting would cease to be the
national treasure that it is today.
There have been many myths floating around about public broadcasting.
Misstatements and incorrect perceptions have clouded up the real
picture. I have already discussed the so-called elitist listener issue,
as well as the program merchandising revenues situation. But there are
others that need to be cleared up. Let me review some of them.
First myth: ``Telecommunications companies could step into the
funding role now played by the Federal government.''
Reality: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not a network.
There are no assets for a private company to acquire. Under statute,
CPB is not allowed to own stations or sources of programming. It is a
funding mechanism to shield the station from direct Government control.
National Public Radio [NPR] and the Public Broadcasting Service [PBS],
which do have assets, are private companies and are not for sale. The
local stations are individually licensed by the FCC for noncommercial
service. Noncommercial licenses are available only to not-for-
[[Page H2804]] profit entities which provide noncommercial educational
services, such as KLON-FM 88. Its entity that is a nonprofit one is the
California State University Long Beach Foundation.
If the critics are referring to possible private donors, it is too
bad that American commercial television and commercial radio have not
stepped up to the plate and assured that public TV and public radio
survive. The more public-spirited cableowners stepped up to the plate
and funded C-SPAN--the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. If a
Donald McGannon still headed Westinghouse--Group W--and Dr. Frank
Stanton still headed the
Columbia Broadcasting System, maybe that would happen. It should. But
it hasn't.
Second myth: ``PBS and NPR programs already feature advertising--
known by the code word `underwriting.'''
Reality: Sec 399(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, which
guides the policy in American television and radio, public and private,
states that ``No public broadcast station may make its facilities
available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.''
Public broadcasters are allowed, under the statute, to make statements
on the air for corporate sponsors in exchange for remuneration, as long
as the statement is in no way a promotion of the sponsors' products or
services. The comment at the beginning or the end of a sponsored
program--``Brought to you by the HPC Company''--is all the touting a
corporate sponsor gets.
Third myth: ``75 cents out of every dollar spent in public
broadcasting goes to overhead.''
Reality: This misstatement appears to come from a report called
``Quality Time'' which was issued by the Twentieth Century Fund task
force on public television. The report stated, ``Of the $1.2 billion
spent in the public television system in 1992, approximately 75 percent
of the funds were used to cover the cost of station operations.'' The
term ``station operations'' meant every activity a station undertakes
besides national programming--such things as administration, community
service programs, delivery of services, and the cost of producing or
acquiring local programming, indeed, a lot of what a station does.
Community service and local programming are a vital part of public
broadcasting's role in the community--a responsibility many commercial
stations ignore.
Fourth myth: ``With so many television channels available--CNN,
Discovery, the Learning Channel, the History Channel, Arts &
Entertainment--there are plenty of substitutes for public
broadcasting.''
Cable channels are available without government subsidy because they
have two revenue streams--advertising and subscription fees averaging
$40 per month. For the 40 percent of the American people who do not
have cable programming, these programs are not viable alternatives.
Public broadcast services reach 99 percent of American households--for
free.
In addition, there are no channels of this type for radio. There are
virtually no other radio sources with the kind of in-depth news, public
affairs, information, and cultural programming that public radio
provides.
Fifth myth: ``Direct Broadcast Satellite is now available everywhere
in the 48 contiguous states with over 150 channels of digital video and
audio programming.''
Reality: This type of audio programming service is not yet widely
available to the American public, nor will it be for several years--
unless one has somewhere between $600 and $3000 for the equipment. It
will be the late nineties before the hardware and infrastructure are in
place to deliver the service. And, this will not be a free service.
Sixth myth: ``If the 5.2 million PBS members were to contribute only
$55 more a year, it would equal the Federal share for CPB. It is clear
that those donors are the very people who can afford to contribute an
additional $55 a year.''
Reality: Not so. Not all public radio listeners can afford an
additional $55 per year. In fact, 41 percent of the 15 million people
who listen to public radio earn less than $30,000 annually, and 48
percent live in households with combined incomes of under $40,000 per
year.
Seventh myth: ``Current public broadcasting formulas favor large
urban, elite stations. They get most of the Federal funds.''
Reality: Again, not so. In fiscal year 1994, more than $5.7 million
in additional support funding was given to unserved areas and
underserved audiences. From 1991 to 1993, CPB expansion grants to
markets with fewer than 25,000 people, to stations that provide the
only full-power broadcast service to their communities, and to stations
in unserved markets helped 3.5 million people receive public radio
signals for the first time.
Eighth myth: ``Public broadcasting is the mouthpiece of the liberal
elite.''
Reality: In response to Congressional concern in 1993, a joint,
bipartisan project by two established research firms--Lauer, Lalley &
Associates and Public Opinion Strategies--conducted a national survey
to assess public perceptions of balance, objectivity, and bias in
programming aired by public broadcasting. They found that roughly equal
percentages agree that public televisions is too slanted toward liberal
positions--28 percent--and too slanted toward conservative positions--
28 percent.
The reality check to these myths shows us that America is getting
quite a bargain for the modest support we in Congress give to public
broadcasting. They do a lot with a little. We must do all we can to
help further their efforts. While we all know that cuts must be made
across the board in virtually all federally funded activities, let us
make sure that any cuts we make take into consideration the value of
the activity to the American people.
So, when we vote on any cuts to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, let us keep in mind Americans such as Mrs. Ida May Bell
of Long Beach who wrote, ``I watch KCET-TV every day. I live on a small
pension and can't afford cable, but with KCET available, I am able to
enjoy excellent TV.''
Let us recall the comments of educators such as Barbara Mowers of
Long Beach who wrote about using public television as a classroom
learning tool to expand the horizons of her students.
Or the remarks of Lakewood resident Donald Versaw who told me that he
``doesn't think the country should make grants to individuals for inane
`art'--but, by and large, Public TV and Radio is something this country
needs.''
We must remember the words of CPB supporters such as Long Beach
resident Glenn Skalland who wrote ``Having recently suffered a back
injury, I have viewed more TV than I'm proud to admit. I can attest to
the desolation on commercial television. Sex and violence sell. Public
TV needn't sell anything; consequently, their programming needn't
appeal to our baser instincts. Shows are informative and, on the whole,
family-oriented. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Keep public television free and on the air.''
And, the words of Allen Robinson of Long Beach will be hard to
forget: ``I've heard it charged that PBS is only watched by the
cultural elite. Well, I don't have an elite bone in my whole body, but
I do have half a brain which is twice as much that's required to watch
the drivel served up by the commercial stations. This must be a nation
of idiots judging from what `sells.' Good taste, decency, and integrity
can't compete with sensationalism, pornography, distortion, and push-
your-button politically correct slices of touchy-feely liberal humbug
or a race-baiting right-wing blowhard egomaniac. No wonder the kids are
so screwed up. A democracy depends on a literate informed citizen. PBS
is going its share.''
Most of us in the House want to see a greater emphasis on personal
responsibility. Some of the proposals we are considering in the
Contract With America correctly focus on that.
Welfare reform is an example. President and Congress claim to be of
one mind on creating a framework of law which will encourage personal
responsibility. In brief, most of us believe values are important. Most
Americans who sent us here believe the same as we do.
Hamid R. Rahai, a resident of my district, put his finger on what all
of us need to ask ourselves: He speaks ``as a parent and an educator''
and admits that he is ``quite puzzled that at a time when Congress and
its leadership
[[Page H2805]] champion teaching of values and personal
responsibilities, they plan to do away with educational tools needed to
educate the public and specially young people.'' He sees public TV as
``an excellent educational tool. It offers a fresh alternative to the
mundane (at best), useless or sometimes outright destructive
programming offered by commercial and cable networks that are being
offered as an alternative. It is free and accessible to all,
particularly to the underprivileged who need it most, and could not
afford the cost of cable networks.''
Mr. Rahai is absolutely correct.
We all know that for the last several decades most Americans receive
their political information to decide presidential and statewide races
from commercial television--the occasional debates, the ceaseless
number of paid--by the candidates--misleading and shallow
advertisements, the horse-race focus of the national commentaries.
``Who's up?'' and ``Who's down?'' The endless chatter leads many voters
to ask: ``Who cares?'' Public radio and public television provide an
island of sanity by sponsoring debates and in-depth interviews of
candidates at all levels of our system.
As Pat and Jim Bliss of Long Beach wrote, ``there is probably no
dearer institution to the hearts of almost everyone who values
education and the arts than public radio and television.''
Mr. Speaker, we must, in some way, preserve this great national
treasure. Margaret M. Langhans of Long Beach saw an analogy between our
national parks and public television and radio: ``To lessen access to
public airwaves is akin to lessening access to our national parks. We
hold both in trust for the benefit of the Republic.''
I could not have said it better, Margaret.
____________________