<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:58506.wais]
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2384
__________
JUNE 30, and JULY 20, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-506 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Hearings held:
June 30, 1999................................................ 1
July 20, 1999................................................ 63
Testimony of:
Brugger, David J., President and CEO, America's Public
Television Stations........................................ 26
Burns, Ken, President, Florentine Films...................... 110
Burton, LeVar, Public Broadcasting Service................... 19
Chester, Jeffrey A., Executive Director, Center for Media
Education.................................................. 35
Coonrod, Robert T., President and CEO, Corporation for Public
Broadcasting:
June 30, 1999............................................ 10
July 20, 1999............................................ 85
Courtney, Beth, President and CEO, Louisiana Network......... 32
Duggan, Ervin S., President and CEO, Public Broadcasting
Service:
June 30, 1999............................................ 13
July 20, 1999............................................ 89
Graham, Timothy, Director of Media Analysis, Media Research
Center..................................................... 128
Jordan, Amy B., Senior Research Investigator, Annenberg
Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania........... 122
Klose, Kevin, President and CEO, National Public Radio:
June 30, 1999............................................ 21
July 20, 1999............................................ 91
Lassman, Kent, Deputy Director, Technology and
Communications, Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation.... 115
Liroff, David, Vice President and CTO, WGBH Educational
Foundation................................................. 34
Additional material submitted for the record:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, report dated Septenber
19, 1999................................................... 148
(iii)
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Stearns, Cox,
Rogan, Shimkus, Wilson, Fossella, Ehrlich, Bliley (ex officio),
Markey, Eshoo, Engel, Wynn, Luther, Sawyer, Green, McCarthy,
and Dingell (ex officio).
Staff present: Linda Bloss-Baum, majority counsel; Andy
Levin, minority counsel; and Cliff Riccio, legislative clerk.
Mr. Tauzin. The committee will please come to order.
Good morning. Let me begin by thanking in advance our very
distinguished panel. As you can see, we assemble large panels,
and our policy has always been that one big, large panel is
preferable to two, because generally when we have two it's me
and the panel, everybody else goes away. So this way we share
some experience together.
We are honored to have such an esteemed group to testify
today, actor-producer-director LeVar Burton, representing the
Public Broadcasting Service. From my home State, my special
welcome to Beth Courtney, a frequent visitor with us and a dear
friend. She's President and CEO of Louisiana Network, on behalf
of America's Public Television Stations.
We are pleased that all of you have taken the time to be
with us to help educate us this morning on the important issues
that affect virtually every American household, the
authorization of public broadcasting. While you American public
broadcasters are before the subcommittee this morning to
educate us about your business, public broadcast stations are
on airways across America, educating Americans on topics
concerning everything from the alphabet to zoology. Since
Congress passed the first Public Broadcasting Act in 1967, as
an amendment to the Communications Act, Americans have enjoyed
hundreds of thousands of commercial-free cultural programs from
public affairs to the performing arts.
I have long been a supporter of the work you do to provide
quality, clean, alternative programming that American families
have come to rely upon every day. I want to assure you that you
have the ability to continue to provide this tremendous public
service in the next millennium.
For this reason, I have introduced the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting Authorization Act of 1999. The last time we
enacted legislation authorizing the CPB, over which this
committee has jurisdiction, was in 1992. The authorization
expired, of course, in the fiscal year 1996. We have additional
reasons to focus on this important authorization bill this
year. The FCC's timetable for broadcast conversation to digital
format provides that public television stations must transmit
digital signals by the year 2003. Public broadcasters, simply
put, need help raising the funds for this costly and
complicated transition to digital television.
Last year, Congress appropriated the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting $15 million, conditioned on Congress passing an
authorization bill by the end of this fiscal year. It is my
intent that we do just that.
And don't get me wrong, although I wholeheartedly support
the funding for public broadcasting, I also support efforts to
cut unnecessary programs out of our Federal budget. Clearly,
this is a beginning of a process to make sure that public
broadcasters receive critical resources so they can comply with
the important schedule of digital roll-out and make their
quality programs available to even more Americans, in fact,
every day.
In addition to authorizing the CPB, my bill also funds
public television facilities program. The PTFP is the only
Federal capital improvement program for public broadcasting. In
this day and age of questionable content on hundreds of
commercial stations, it is more important than ever to assure
that public broadcasters are able to continue to offer quality
programming to the maximum number of listeners and viewers
across the country. Enabling stations to do so with resources
to keep up with digital technologies will be essential to serve
the public interest.
Let me also say the bill before you today is a start of a
legislative process. As many of you know, I have long explored
a number of difficult and complicated reform proposals over the
last few years. And while reform is very highly important to
me, I think a slimmed down reauthorization is the best
mechanism to move forward in the near term.
But I want to assure you that some of the ideas we put out
for more and more secure public funding of public broadcasting,
so that public broadcasting can be truly public broadcasting
and less commercial, less commercialized, less commercially
supportable type programming, programming that ought to be on
commercial stations, is a chief goal of mine. As we make this
transition to digital, there are going to be opportunities for
us to follow through on those reforms.
Public broadcasting ought to have some kind of permanent
trust funding so that public broadcasters have to depend less
upon commercials and commercial support and commercial
activities and commercially supportable programming, so that it
can focus on its public mission. To that end, I will continue
to put out ideas and to lay them before you and get your
comments. Mr. Markey has been a tremendous help and advisor and
counselor and assistant and friend in developing these ideas
and promoting them. I want to thank him for his work. I also
want to thank him and Mr. Dingell for joining me today and
introducing the bill and for working with me, as I said, on
these initiatives.
I want to also thank the New York delegation, led by Mr.
Elliott Engel, for the strong letter of support for public
broadcasting. I look forward, again, to the testimony of our
very distinguished witnesses today, and yield now to my friend
from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for an opening statement.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Chairman Tauzin. I think we're going
to have a great hearing today.
I believe that this legislation underscores the bipartisan
support that public broadcasting enjoys throughout America. In
short, the legislation authorizes funding for the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting at a level not to exceed $475 million
for fiscal year 2002. In addition, the bill also authorizes the
funding to assist in converting public broadcasting stations to
digital technologies at $100 million for each of the fiscal
years from the year 2000 through 2003.
This additional money for digital conversion is vitally
important, as the Federal Communications Commission has set a
deadline of 2003 for public broadcasting stations to go
digital. It's my hope that we can begin to provide additional
money for digital technology as soon as possible, because the
public stations are under a deadline to go digital and must do
so without the financial resources available to them that are
available to commercial stations.
The legislation also reauthorizes the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program Grant program in the
Department of Commerce, an important program that assists in
the planning and the construction of public telecommunications
facilities. I believe that the legislation reinforces the firm
commitment in Congress to providing an electronic oasis for
learning and information in what has been called the vast
wasteland of commercial television.
Frankly, if public television and radio did not exist
today, we would probably be up here calling for its creation.
Free, over the air, non-commercial television and radio are
indispensable media outlets in our communities today for
millions of Americans, and especially millions of children and
their parents. We must remember that telecommunications
technology can only empower those who can obtain it, or those
who can afford to get it.
Not every American family can afford cable. At a cost of
just $1 per year, per person, what parents and kids get from
free, over the air public TV and public radio is an incredible
bargain. To me, the question is not, can we afford it, but
rather, can we afford to lose it. Safeguarding public
broadcasting from budget cuts and ensuring that the system has
the resources it needs to remain vibrant and creative are
vitally important. I am committed to fighting in the Congress
to secure such funding.
Ensuring that the system itself raises its portion of the
funding, however, in a manner that remains true to the
fundamental non-commercial nature of the medium is also vitally
important. I continue to have concerns about what I refer to as
the creeping commercialism that we have seen from some public
broadcasting entities in recent years. Corporate underwriting
was never meant to become advertising. It was meant to be an
acknowledgment to the viewer or listener of sources of funding.
Public broadcasting is a national treasure. But we must
treasure its non-commercial nature. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today as to how we can maintain public TV
and public radio as a crown jewel of our broadcasting medium.
Again, Chairman Tauzin, I want to thank you for holding
this very important hearing, and I'm looking forward to working
with you. I yield back the balance.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank my friend. The Chair is now pleased to
recognize Mrs. Wilson for an opening statement.
Mrs. Wilson. I would just ask unanimous consent that my
statement be put in the record.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady. In fact, the Chair will
make the unanimous consent request that all members' written
statements be made a part of the record and that all the
witnesses' written statements be made a part of the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair will recognize Mr. Ehrlich for an opening
statement.
Mr. Ehrlich. In view of the Chair's ruling, I will forego
an opening statement.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich.
Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. I have no opening statement.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Dingell is here, the ranking member of the full
committee and my dear friend from Michigan.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
Mr. Tauzin. Good morning, sir.
Mr. Dingell. First of all, thank you for recognizing me.
Second, I'd like to commend you for introducing legislation to
reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's a
fine bill and one that I am proud to co-sponsor with you and
Mr. Markey and many others on this committee.
There is great importance to providing adequate funding to
public broadcasting, and I am delighted we have just begun this
effort with a bipartisan consensus to do just that. Today,
Americans are yearning for alternatives which many see as decay
in the recent quality of programming on radio and television.
Recently, the House considered legislation that sought to
impose Government constraints on the content of programming
transmitted through the electronic media.
While I certainly cannot defend the intrinsic value of such
programs containing graphic depictions of violence, sexual
innuendo and the like, I do believe strongly in the right of
broadcasters to make and distribute programs of this type, so
long as they do so within the bounds of the First Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in my view, the solution to this problem lies
not in the censoring of programs we do not like, but rather in
actively encouraging the development of programs that we do.
That is precisely why we are here today and precisely what we
do today, to pledge our support for public broadcasting, a
service which is devoted its entire history and mission to the
creation of quality program that inspires, instructs and
entertains children and adults alike.
This week, the Annenberg Public Policy Center released its
annual findings on the state of children's television. I'm sure
I would find there is no surprise amongst us that the trends
were found to be discouraging, despite recent commitments by
commercial broadcasters to increase the amount of children's
educational programming on television. As well-meaning as those
commitments may have been, the results bear out the practical
reality that neither the Congress nor the FCC can mandate a
wholesale shift in the traditional mind set and mission of
these inherently commercial programmers.
By the same token, it came as no surprise that the
Annenberg study found that non-commercial broadcasters provided
the highest quality and most educational programming available
on television. In fact, that study found literally no violence,
no sex, no offensive language on any of the children's shows
running on public television. This is a powerful argument for
us to support public television and the funding which would
come through this legislation. Indeed, I am unaware of anyone
who would question the moral or the educational value of these
programs for our children.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for sharing my views, and I thank
my colleagues for sharing the views of a majority of Americans
that public broadcasting is an essential service that pays huge
dividends and that indeed are a strong and a valued investment
that this Nation makes in itself, its children and its future.
I commend you for leading this effort. I look forward to speedy
passage of this bill. And I yield back whatever time remains.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank my friend, and I think the panel is
getting the correct impression that you will be preaching to
the choir today.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms.
McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Mr. Dingell for introducing this reauthorization of public
broadcasting. I would like to join you as a co-sponsor in this
great effort and pledge my continued support of public
television.
I must confess to all the panelists that that's probably
the only reason I turn on my television, is because of you. You
are offering to me and all viewers an unbiased and very
thorough approach to the issues of the day, to the information
that we need and of course for our children, for the education
that they so desperately need in a very changing world.
So I thank you for all that you do. You are a key resource
to our democracy. And Mr. Chairman, while joining you as a co-
sponsor, I hope that when we mark up this wonderful bill that
we could have a discussion about the need for caps at all.
Because I sat in on a meeting at 8 o'clock this morning where
we talked about trillions in surplus. This is such a valuable
tool, I would hate to limit the resources for our future.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today to discuss
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Authorization Act of 1999. I
look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today and to
ensuring that public broadcasting, including television and radio, are
adequately funded.
Public television provides many important services to our citizens,
including children's programming, educational programming, and arts
programming. It provides these programs, whether or not a resident
subscribes to cable or satellite television. Many of our nation's youth
get an extra boost in their early years learning to count or sing the
``ABC'' song while watching public televisions shows. As they grow
older, they might learn about ocean life, classic works of art, or
literature through public television shows.
Public broadcasting also offers unbiased, thoroughly balanced
investigative reports on the top issues of the day, so that viewers can
make informed decisions about complicated situations. It is a key
resource of our democracy, allowing for an educated citizenry. I am
served in my district by KCPT, KCUR, and KANU. These stations provide
the Greater Kansas City Area with quality, informative programming. I
applaud these stations for their broadcasting excellence.
I have advocated for public broadcasting on a variety of levels.
Recently, I wrote a letter to the Labor, HHS, Education, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee requesting that the subcommittee's appropriations
bill for FY 2000 include sufficient funding for both the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and for the Digital Transition fund
within CPB. I will remain active in both the appropriations aspect as
well as the authorization aspect of public broadcasting.
I am sure that my colleagues agree on the value of public
broadcasting, and I look forward to reaching a consensus on the best
way to continue the programming offered by public television. Thank
you, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer, is recognized.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing and for introducing the bill. I'm pleased to join
you as an original co-sponsor, on this initiative. I think
we've come to appreciate during the last several years when we
have seen the annual appropriations process being called into
jeopardy and where we've lacked the multi-year reauthorizations
that are inherently important for long term sound planning.
We've come to appreciate what we really might lose if we were
to lose the strength of public broadcasting.
Public television and radio tie this country together in
ways that virtually nothing else does. It spans an economic and
demographic spectrum of this country like no other medium that
we have. To lose that would be a crime that our successors
would not forgive us for.
I guess perhaps as much as anything, the way in which the
dollars that we appropriate and authorize through this Congress
become the leverage that public broadcasters can use in
generating the real constituency, the contributing
constituency, in public and private sectors and individual
contributors all across this country that have made public
broadcasting perhaps second only to libraries as the home of a
literate Nation and one that contributes to that level of
literacy. In that sense, just let me say thank you, and Mr.
Chairman, I will submit my opening statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Sawyer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this legislative hearing on the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act. I would also
like to thank our panelists for coming to testify on behalf of this
legislation.
Public television and radio tie this nation together. Without them,
many people in poor and rural areas would be deprived of the
educational and cultural programs that public television and radio
provide.
Current federal funding comprises only a small portion of the total
budget for public broadcasting. The remainder of the funds come from a
variety of sources including public-private donations, corporations,
and state and local governments. However, without federal support many
stations, especially in rural and poor areas, would be forced to cut
back their services or completely shutdown their operations.
Some have claimed that public broadcasting and its programs are the
domain of the elite. The truth is that public broadcasting is for
everyone. In fact, nearly one-half of the National Public Radio (NPR)
listeners come from households with a combined income of $40,000 or
less a year, and less than a third have college degrees. Public
broadcasting brings the full range of entertainment, radio and arts to
people everyday.
Mr. Chairman, as you know it's been seven years since the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting received a multi-year authorization
and that expired in 1996. Since then the Corporation has had to rely on
the yearly appropriations process to receive funding for its operation.
Even though the CPB is forward funded by two years, it is extremely
difficult to operate and plan effectively without a multi-year
authorization.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. It will
provide valuable resources for broadcast stations to upgrade their
facilities to make the required transition to digital programming. It
will also allow those stations to leverage federal funds against other
resources to provide the programming that the Corporation's
constituency requests.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for introducing this important
legislation. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on
this. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor, and this is an important
hearing today. It's wonderful to see everyone that has come in
to testify.
I'll submit my written statement, but just a few thoughts.
I can't help but think what a difference, a few political
seasons make. Just a handful of years ago, we had people
practically hanging from the rafters, filling the hearing room
because of what was being considered at that time. More than
anything else, the American people weighed in. If public
broadcasting and all that it represents were not one of the
jewels in the crown of America, then we would not be having a
calm hearing today. The history that's been written in between
really would not exist.
So I'm proud to co-sponsor this. I'm looking forward to
hearing in the testimony how we help move you on time into a
digital age, and hearing more of the good news. But I want you
to know, for someone that is bicoastal, so to speak, and
commutes every week to California, that WETA and NPR are great
friends of mine at this end of the country, KQED and everything
that they represent and do, I'm so proud of. And more than
anything else, my constituents think so.
So, bravo, and let us move on so that you have a
continuation of adding more jewels to the crown. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for your leadership on the
legislation we are hear to discuss. I'm pleased cosponsor this
legislation, which authorizes funding for Public Broadcasting through
the year 2006.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I place great importance on the service
public broadcasting systems provide for the American people. From Big
Bird to NPR--public broadcasting offers all Americans quality
programming, and perhaps most importantly, quality programming for
free.
It is difficult to measure the return on the investment we make by
authorizing these funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In fact, I think the return is immeasurable, especially when we
consider:
<bullet> The great number of American children who learn from the
characters on Sesame Street, Barney, Arthur and the Teletubbies
<bullet> The great number of Americans who receive their news via NPR
or the Leher News Hour, and
<bullet> The great number of Americans able to receive cultural
programming via public broadcasting.
And all of this programming is commercial free.
A lot of work must still be done to ensure that public broadcasting
systems will meet the digital upgrade deadlines. The legislation we
discuss today takes a very big first step.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for your support of public
broadcasting. I look forward to today's testimony and to seeing this
bill approved by the full House.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too, like my
colleague from Kansas, would like to join in co-sponsoring the
bill. In my district in Houston, we're served very well by both
KUHF radio and the public television station. Having been to a
number of the telethons, fund raisers and every once in a while
letting me introduce some of the music on KUHF radio to raise
money. I don't think there is any doubt about the value of
public radio and television.
I'm just glad today to join in co-sponsoring, Mr. Chairman,
and hopefully we will move the bill fairly quickly. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have always been a strong supporter of commercial-free
broadcasting. While Americans debate the question of whether media
content has contributed to excessive violence in our culture, it is
important to remember that commercial-free broadcasting has been--day-
in and day-out--an oasis of unique, creative, and educational
programming.
I commend these programmers for swimming against the tide of the
coarse programming that has become the staple of commercial
broadcasting. You perform a valuable public service.
And as the entire television industry--both commercial and non-
commercial broadcasters--make the transition to digital, your service
to American communities will become that much more valuable. Digital
television holds great promise for broadcasters and consumers alike,
which is why this Committee has backed this transition.
But the critical question for this Subcommittee is now, and always
has been, the following: what should be the American taxpayers' burden
in ensuring that commercial-free broadcasting remains just that,
commercial-free?
I have long argued that the American taxpayer should bear a
declining share of the burden. Public broadcasters have proven that
their product is popular with American families and corporate
underwriters. Moreover, it is quite possible that the federal
government's heavy-handed role in funding public broadcasting ends up
displacing voluntary sources of funding.
We should therefore never assume that public broadcasting must
always remain a ward of the state. Quite the opposite, I urge my
colleagues to join me in finding ways to ensure that commercial-free
broadcasting will someday be self-sufficient, free of the ``strings''
that always are attached to government handouts.
I have confidence in the commitment and the talent of commercial-
free broadcasters to ultimately become self-sufficient. This is not to
say that I would back proposals to eliminate federal funding overnight.
But neither can I support proposals that would only strengthen public
broadcasting's dependence on the largesse of the federal government.
I thank the Subcommittee Chairman for his hard work in this area,
and for calling this hearing. It is indeed an important matter that
deserves our attention. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the
witnesses this morning.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is truly an honor to come before you
today to stress the importance of public broadcasting services to our
society. I am sure very few individuals in this room can say they have
not seen Public Television shows, such as the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour,
Master Piece Theater, Sesame Street, Arthur or even the infamous
Barney. These shows provide Americans and especially our children with
quality programming that are free from violence and foul language. In
addition, the beauty of PBS programs is that they are uninterrupted and
commercial free. Non-commercial programs provide untainted and pure
content driven programming that is free from commercial interest.
As we approach the new millennium, public television stations are
facing the challenge of making the transition to digital broadcasting
by the year 2003. This conversion is expected to cost $1.7 billion and
creates obstacles for non-profit public television stations who are in
dire need of money.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of 1999
allocates $15 million for fiscal year 1999 and $100 million for each
fiscal year from 2000 until 2003 to aid in the transition. I am in
strong support of this legislation. We must ensure that PBS programming
remain independent and free from commercial influence. Therefore, it is
imperative that we fund PBS at a level where it can continue to survive
in a commercially driven arena.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr. Markey for holding this
timely hearing on the Reauthorization of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. It is no secret that I am a strong supporter of public
broadcasting and in my tenure in Congress, I have done all I can to
preserve the principles beholden to the Public Broadcasting Act of
1967.
I have fought in this Congress to save Public Broadcasting from
extinction with the help of my colleagues in the 104th Congress. With
the help of members on this committee, I was successful in the previous
Congress, in restoring $5 million for the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program, which provides much needed assistance to public
broadcasters in purchasing equipment and hardware.
However, my passion for public broadcasting is not held by me
alone. The New York State Congressional delegation in a bipartisan
effort have sent letters to the Speaker and our committee Chair and
Ranking member asking for this Reauthorization hearing, because we know
the role that stations such as MNET-TV in New York, play in our
families daily life. In a time when we in Congress examine the impact
of violence, and content within the media, on our children and young
adults, it is good to know that shows such as Sesame Street, Barney and
Mr. Rogers continue to provide high quality educational programming
without disturbing images or stereotypical depictions. In fact, I
contend that public television is needed more today than ever and it is
my hope, that my colleagues join me in preserving public television for
all American families as they make the transition to digital
conversion.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair is now pleased to welcome our panel
and give you a chance to give us your views and opening
statements. We would remind you that your written statements
are already a part of the record, so please do not read them.
Engage us, Mr. Burton, engage us in conversation here that we
can come back to you in a dialog.
So if you can, put the notes away and just talk to us, if
you don't mind. You each have 5 minutes. We'll start with the
president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
Mr. Robert Coonrod.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. COONROD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I thank the
members of the subcommittee as well for the words that we just
heard.
Before I make some brief opening comments, I would like to
recognize the Chair of the Board of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting who happens to be with us this morning, Diane
Blair. In addition to a distinguished panel, as you said, there
are some distinguished members of our audience as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. This is an opportunity for us to
continue a dialog that we began last year, and it is a dialog
that is very important to us. I think the members of the
subcommittee have already stated many of the reasons why this
is an important time in the history of public broadcasting. You
are going to hear from my colleagues on this panel some very
exciting things about the revolution that is underway, the
revolution in digital technology, the revolution in new media.
What I would like to talk about briefly is another
revolution, the more quiet revolution that is taking place in
public broadcasting these days. The revolution that has taken
place in the last 4 years and the way public broadcasters
around the country have reconsidered how they do business and
reformed the way they do business and have actually begun to
institute, and we are making some real progress, Mr. Chairman,
in the areas that you have identified as important to the
public broadcasting going forward.
In the last 4 years, station-based task forces and system-
wide consultations have allowed CPB to create incentive grant
programs for innovative projects in radio and television. We
have been able to rewrite the main radio and television grant
programs to better meet the needs of rural stations. We have
instituted a one base grant per market policy. This affects 44
television stations and 18 overlap markets. We have instituted
a one base grant per licensee policy, which affects 37 stations
and 16 licensees.
We have established new outcome based criteria for our
radio grants programs. The Ready to Learn program has been
extended from 10 pilot stations to 127 stations now, most of
whom have full time outreach coordinators. There is now a new
teacher training channel, free available teacher training
channel that has been launched.
The effect of all this, Mr. Chairman, is that public
television and radio stations are doing business smarter. They
are becoming much more self-reliant, and they are doing an even
better job today of delivering the educational and cultural
programming that is important to all Americans. Programming has
maintained its excellence, and it has gotten better in many
ways. Not just from the people who are affiliated with me on
the panel this morning, but groups like the Independent
Television Service and the Minority Consortia have demonstrated
their value.
One way to look at that is through awards. Last month,
programs that are distributed by PBS and NPR received 12 of the
23 George Foster Peabody awards, the most prestigious awards
available in broadcasting. That was from 1300 entries. So it
gives you a sense of the quality that we are able to achieve.
Daytime Emmys, Fred Rogers, Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science
Guy, Wishbone, This Old House were all recipients of Emmys.
And a program that was supported by the National Asian
American Telecommunications Association, which is a San
Francisco based group that we support, was nominated for an
Oscar. So the quality of the programming on public television
and public radio is better than ever. But we are also making
real headlines on the Web. PBS has won another Webby for PBS
Online. The Annenberg CPB project won a Webby for the best
educational web site.
So we are doing this in this sort of quiet way as I would
describe it. But I think it is an important way.
Let me give you two examples in closing of the kinds of
things that stations are doing that are really making a
difference. In Colorado, KRMA and KBDI are developing a joint
master control facility which will reduce each station's
individual staff needs and hardware investment now and in the
future. These are the kinds of reform activities that stations
have underway.
In Jonesboro, Arkansas, KASU, a public radio station, has
received special assistance from CPB to help them meet the new
outcome based criteria in public radio. Not only did the
station increase its revenues by 42 percent, but training for
the news production team was completed just 2 weeks before the
tragic Jonesboro shootings. KASU reporters were better prepared
to make local contribution to the national coverage of that
important story.
So in sum, Mr. Chairman, we want to continue to work with
you to improve and refine the system that is undergoing this
quiet revolution. We believe this legislation will allow us to
sustain the momentum that we have established over the last 4
years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Robert T. Coonrod follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert T. Coonrod, President and CEO, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Thank you, Chairman Tauzin and Mr. Markey for your work last
Congress and this Congress to support public broadcasting. We in public
broadcasting are grateful to you and the members of the Subcommittee.
Your support is very important both in a practical way, and as a
tangible symbol of the way public broadcasting joins national interests
to local interests, and the public sector to the private sector. The
value and strength of these partnerships are increasing in importance.
They are the basis of our planning for our transition from a technology
born in the 1950's to the technology of the 21st Century.
We appreciate and support your legislative commitment to
reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB was last
authorized in 1992 for a period that ended in 1996, at which point CPB
was authorized at a level of $425 million. Our appropriation that year
was originally $312 million, an amount which was later reduced to $275
million as a result of a multi-year rescission. Public broadcasting is
currently operating on an appropriation of $250 million.
My understanding, too, is that your legislation authorizes a
special digital conversion fund through CPB to facilitate the
transition of public broadcasting stations to digital technology. We
are particularly grateful for this support and for your support for
reauthorization of the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program:
our partner in the digital conversion. The need to authorize CPB to
distribute funds for digital conversion is pressing, both because of
federal time lines, and because of our keen desire to fully use digital
technology--technology that lends itself more perfectly to the
development and airing of excellent, universally available,
noncommercial programming, rich in educational content, and tailored to
the interests and needs of local communities. Digital technology will
revolutionize the medium of broadcast television and radio, public as
well as commercial. I hope you received a tape of the digital program
prototypes we circulated to your offices earlier this week. If you
watch it, you'll understand what all the excitement is about.
You will hear more from my colleagues about this technological
revolution. It will be dramatic and will affect everything we do.
But, I want to use my remaining few minutes to talk about another
revolution--a quiet revolution. Since our last reauthorization, public
broadcasting has not stood still.
In the past four years alone, through station-based task forces and
system-wide consultations with our public broadcasting colleagues, CPB
has: created an incentive grant program for innovative television
practices; created an incentive grant program for innovative radio
practices; rewritten the main radio and television grant programs to
better meet the needs of rural stations; instituted a one base grant
per market policy affecting 44 television stations in 18 overlap
markets; and, instituted a one base grant per licensee policy affecting
37 television stations and 16 licensees. We established new outcome
based criteria for radio station grants; expanded the Ready To Learn
program from a 10 station pilot project to 127 stations, most of which
now employ a full time outreach coordinator; helped launch the first
free teacher training channel in math and science; funded the first
prototypes of digital broadcasting content; and--in the midst of it
all--reduced the size of CPB. The effect of all this is that public
television and radio stations are doing business smarter, becoming more
self reliant, and doing even better at delivering educational and
cultural programming for all Americans.
Programming has maintained its excellence, and, in many ways, has
gotten better. At CPB we are affiliated with organizations dedicated to
program development, who are not represented on this panel, but who
have done excellent work to improve their output; organizations such as
the Minority Consortia and the Independent Television Service. Last
month, programs airing on PBS and NPR received 12 of 33 George Foster
Peabody awards for Broadcast and Cable Excellence granted this year out
of nearly 1,300 entries. A few days later, Fred Rogers, Sesame Street,
Bill Nye The Science Guy, Wishbone, and This Old House all won daytime
Emmys. Earlier this year, a CPB/National Asian American
Telecommunications Association-funded documentary was nominated for an
Oscar, and public broadcasters, specifically PBS and Annenberg/CPB, won
awards for the Best TV Web Site and the Best Educational Web Site. In
addition, public broadcasting is a leader in the development of digital
data-enhanced programming.
As I said, there is a quiet revolution taking place within public
broadcasting. Allow me to fill out the picture somewhat.
Reforming Station Grant Criteria
Since 1995, CPB has commissioned a number of task forces of
talented public broadcasters from diverse economic and geographical
backgrounds to review our grant policies in both television and radio
in an effort to increase efficiency, more efficiently use
infrastructure, and improve our service to the American people. The
result has been a series of policies generated by public broadcasters
and adopted by the CPB Board that have quietly reformed the way we do
business.
Television grants are made up of two parts: a base grant, which is
an equal payment to every eligible public television station; and, an
incentive grant which is based on the amount of nonfederal money a
station has raised. Base grants have generally been linked to
infrastructure needs, so in situations where consolidation of
infrastructure may be possible, stations are being asked to share a
single base grant.
For example, in cases where one licensee operates more than one
station, the task force reasoned that the licensee should be limited to
one base grant. The CPB Board adopted that recommendation, and in 1996,
16 licensees from places like Pittsburgh, South Carolina, and Northern
Virginia went from receiving a total of 37 base grants to a total of 16
base grants. The money saved is being redistributed to public
television stations through increases to the incentive grants.
Also in 1996, CPB in consultation with our public broadcasting
colleagues, for the first time began to take broadcast signal overlap
into account when determining grant awards. Today, 44 stations in 18
markets are in the final stages of a three year phase-in of a one base
grant per market policy. In many cases, stations that share a market
are now working together to reduce infrastructure costs. For example,
public television stations KBDI-TV, in Broomfield, Colorado, and KRMA-
TV, Denver, are developing a joint master control facility, reducing
each individual station's staff needs and hardware investment now and
in the future. In Utah, KBYU-TV, Provo; KUED-TV, Salt Lake City, and
KULC-TV, Salt Lake City; and five commercial television stations are
building a joint digital television transmission facility. As a result
of this cooperation, infrastructure costs are being cut and commercial
broadcasters are investing in a facility that will benefit public
broadcasters.
Radio grant criteria were changed to introduce, for the first time,
minimum audience service standards. These new standards provide
additional assurance that the services CPB helps fund are meeting
community needs. KASU-FM, a public radio station in Jonesboro,
Arkansas, received special assistance from CPB to help them meet the
new outcome-based criteria. Not only did the station increase its
revenues by 42%, but training for the news production team was
completed just two weeks before the tragic Jonesboro shooting. KASU's
reporters were better prepared to make a local contribution to the
national coverage of this important story.
Creating Incentives for Innovation
While grants are being reduced in some cases, more money is
available for innovative projects. The TV Future Fund and the Radio
Future Fund provide grants to stations that develop new ways to reduce
costs or increase revenues. In a recent survey of public radio managers
and development directors from all sizes of markets and geographical
locations, 71% said they'd changed the way they do business as a result
of the Radio Future Fund. For example, KPBS, San Diego, is using a CPB
Radio Future Fund grant to explore the characteristics of their major
donors in an effort to identify additional major donors within the
station's very diverse listening audience. A Television Future Fund
Project is bringing together WGBH in Boston, WVIZ in Cleveland, GPTV in
Atlanta, WHYY in Philadelphia, and KUED in Salt Lake City, in an
experiment to boost local giving through direct mail. CPB funded an
innovative competition between NPRN, the Nebraska Public Radio Network,
and SDPR, South Dakota Public Radio, in which the two organizations
competed to see which could raise a predetermined dollar goal during an
eight day on-air membership campaign. In two years of competition, the
stations increased giving by better than 30%.
The Infinite Outsource project began as a Florida-based effort to
help stations consolidate membership, fundraising, and database
management. The program has been so successful that it has grown beyond
the borders of Florida to become a regional, even national, movement
that may involve more than 50 public television stations when fully
implemented. In a similar effort, Alabama Public Television, Arkansas
Educational Television Network, Georgia Public Television, Louisiana
Public Television, and Mississippi Educational Network are seeking ways
to use common resources to discover efficiencies through collaboration.
In radio, CPB brought together African-American stations to seek ways
in which these stations could learn from each other and increase
cooperation. Several radio and television Future Fund projects also
help stations increase their underwriting support.
The five most important sources of station revenues are:
membership, state governments, businesses, CPB appropriation, and state
colleges. Each source of income is important. The loss of any one of
them would be devastating. Our challenge is to make noncommercial
television and radio attractive to all of our supporters: members,
businesses, colleges, state governments, Congress, and others.
We want to continue to work with you to improve and refine a system
that is undergoing this quiet revolution. We believe this legislation
will allow us to sustain the momentum we have established and to more
successfully meet the challenge of the next revolution: digital
broadcasting.
Thank you again for your commitment to move a reauthorization bill.
I am pleased to respond to questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Coonrod. We will now turn to Mr.
Duggan, President and CEO of Public Broadcasting Service. I
understand you have a demonstration for us as well.
STATEMENT OF ERVIN S. DUGGAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE
Mr. Duggan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
express our profound gratitude to you and to the ranking
member, Mr. Markey, and to your colleagues for having this
hearing and allowing us the privilege of participating.
You made a something rueful comment about our preaching to
the choir. I would like to say on behalf of the preachers that
we think the choir has made beautiful music this morning. We
are grateful to all of you for that.
I am going to make three quick points on the way to an
exciting demonstration of a perhaps unexpected potential of
digital television that we hope you will find as interesting as
we have found creating it. On the way to that demonstration,
however, I do want to make two or three important points. The
first one, Mr. Chairman, is that only public broadcasting will
use the new digital media, has the commitment and the expertise
to use the new digital media for educational purposes, for
cultural purposes, for non-profit enlightenment of our
citizenry.
All other uses of these media will be commercial, and
that's fine. We want to create internet billionaires, we know
it's great for the economy.
But the only non-profit public service educational use of
these media will come from public broadcasting. That can only
happen with your support.
As other panelists have mentioned, as members of the
subcommittee have mentioned, this is a time of tremendous
concern about the impact of media, the vulgarization, the
violence in media. We want to be, and we believe we are part of
the solution to that problem. It is only with your generous
help and support that we can continue to be part of a solution.
But I think it is important to note in the beginning that
only public broadcasting is equipped to do that non-profit
educational use of all media, beginning with radio and
television but extending to the new digital media.
The second point that I would make briefly in passing is
that the clock is ticking, as you pointed out, and as Mr.
Markey pointed out, on an unfunded Federal mandate. It is the
intention and the commitment of public broadcasters to raise
about two-thirds of all the funds we need for the digital
conversation from other than Federal sources. But we greatly
need the continuing support of the Congress in this public-
private partnership. We believe that you are committed and we
are tremendously grateful for the vision and leadership that
you, Mr. Markey and your colleagues have shown to stepping up
to the funding of this unfunded mandate.
As of last week, the public television stations around the
country had raised about $250 million, $170 million of it,
something in excess of $170 million, from State governments.
Those State governments are expecting a match of funds from the
Federal Government. So we honor you and we're grateful to you
for stepping up to the plate and helping us with the public
part of this public-private partnership.
Universal service which is a commitment of ours, to reach
every home, if possible every school and college in the country
with our educational and cultural mission, that universal
service depends on you. So we are tremendously grateful to you
for stepping up to the plate.
The third point that I would want to make is that just as
public broadcasting has been the wellspring of creativity in
radio and television broadcasting, inventing whole new genres
for the public, we want to be that, and we believe we can be
that wellspring of innovation and creativity in digital media.
You know, and several members of the panel have mentioned the
inventiveness and innovation and creativity of public
broadcasters in inventing things like educational broadcasting
for children.
The invention of the historical documentary on television
was really something that came out of public broadcasting. We
believe that same creativity and that same innovative power can
be brought by our service to the new digital media. And in
fact, we believe that if we do not do it, it may not be likely
to happen.
To illustrate that creativity now, Mr. Chairman, and to
underscore our commitment to being innovators and creators in
the digital media, I want you, if you will, to turn your
attention to the screens that you see on either side. Imagine
yourself last November watching the wonderful Ken Burns
documentary of Frank Lloyd Wright. That documentary told about
the life of Frank Lloyd Wright. It did not really tell us very
much about his work.
But if you were curious about the work of Frank Lloyd
Wright, and if you were in seven digital demonstrationsites
around the country that were properly equipped, you could click
at the end of that documentary and download an embedded package
of additional information that came along with the documentary,
embedded because of the marvelous technological power of this
digital medium.
I would like to introduce John Hollar, who is the Executive
Vice President of PBS for Learning Ventures. He played a role
with Intel and their colleagues in creating the embedded
enhanced digital package that went along with Frank Lloyd
Wright.
We hear a lot about HDTV. Mr. Chairman, this is EDTV,
enhanced digital television. And if John Hollar will come
forward, he can lead us through this new invention that we
think has tremendous potential for the future of public
broadcasting and our educational and cultural mission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hollar. What you will see, Mr. Chairman, is the last 10
seconds of the last evening of Frank Lloyd Wright. Then you
will see a trigger come up at the bottom of the screen, which
will then take you much deeper into the information related to
the broadcast.
[Demonstration proceeded.]
Mr. Hollar. I will read what it says. It says, to launch
the PBS Interactive Companion to this episode, press return on
your keyboard.
[Demonstration proceeded.]
Mr. Hollar. Click here on the information button, and you
get more information from Eric Lloyd Wright.
[Demonstration proceeded.]
Mr. Hollar. Here on Fallingwater, we are actually
transported to the work of architecture itself. There is a
blueprint of the house, Fallingwater, and if you click on one
of these red icons, then you actually step into the house
itself. This is the main living area of Fallingwater. You can
see, using your cursor, this is a 360 degree interactive tour
of the home itself. So you can stand in the middle of the
living room, you can use your cursor to look up at the ceiling,
or you can look down at the floor. You can tour the entire room
this way and you can go at your own pace and speed.
If you click here, you are now looking out to the terrace.
If you click here, you actually step out onto the terrace at
Fallingwater. Again, using your cursor, you can look out past
the cantilevered balconies, out to the water itself, into the
woods. You can look down over the balcony.
This is a three-level house. Each floor of the house is
represented on the blueprint. This is floor two and this is
floor three. There is a little bedroom here on the third floor,
which is quite nice. You can see there is this enormous bank of
windows, so when you wake up in the morning, you feel as if you
are actually out in the middle of nature.
I am going to take you very quickly now to the Guggenheim,
just so you can experience this.
[Demonstration proceeded.]
Mr. Hollar. Again, using this same three-dimensional
technology, you are standing on the floor of the Guggenheim,
looking up past the balconies to the ceiling. You can use your
cursor to come down and gradually look at the floor. You can
look throughout the museum and navigate around.
You can stand on one of the upper balconies and actually
see how the artwork in the Guggenheim is displayed. So there
you are standing on one of the upper balconies. Then you can
rotate around and look at the other artwork.
There is a great deal more here. There are outtakes from
the film, there is a sort of story within the story, full
digital video clips. There is quite an extensive set of lesson
plans that are correlated to this actual film that involve
science and art and technology. There is a chance to bridge
from this piece out to the internet, so you can learn more
about Frank Lloyd Wright.
It is important to emphasize that everything that you see
here was actually broadcast simultaneously with the program, so
that this was actually part of the digital signal. It was
received on a digital receiver. These are available now, and
these are not futuristic devices. They are available now in
virtually every electronics store in the country. We really
believe that this begins to show part of what the real power of
digital television can be.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ervin S. Duggan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ervin S. Duggan, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Public Broadcasting Service
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Ervin Duggan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Public
Broadcasting Service. We are grateful to you for the opportunity to
join this hearing.
Your Leadership
Mr. Chairman, let me first express our gratitude to you and to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Markey, for your support for public broadcasting
over the years and particularly as we enter the digital age. We are
grateful to have two distinguished leaders as our champions. Your
respective local stations--Louisiana Public Broadcasting and WGBH
Boston--represent some of the best of public television: stations
dedicated to producing unique, enriching programming, and to serving
our educational mission creatively at the local level.
Public Broadcasting Means Public Service
I will make a few brief points this morning, and then we would like
to show you an exciting example of our plans for the digital future.
Public broadcasters are unique. We are the only enterprise that
uses media and the public airways to address the most pressing concerns
of our times: universal access to quality education; appreciation of
the world's cultural riches and human achievement; and civil discourse
by an informed electorate. At a time when the popular culture is
deluged by violence, gratuitous sex and overbearing commercialism, our
programs are violence-free, commercial-free and treat controversial
issues responsibly.
We are consistent leaders in television's most prestigious
competitions. Last year, for example, we earned far more Peabody
Awards, duPont-Columbia Awards for television journalism, children's
Daytime Emmys, and News and Documentary Emmy awards than any other
television service, broadcast or cable. PBS presents television's four
highest-rated programs among preschoolers--ARTHUR, BARNEY & FRIENDS,
TELETUBBIES and SESAME STREET. We are the number one television
resource for classroom programming in the country, according to three
consecutive surveys of teachers and librarians by Cable in the
Classroom. Delivering such high quality programs year after year is a
tall order. It takes a combination of talent, dedication, experience
and funding. We very much need and appreciate your support in
continuing to make this possible and applaud your efforts to
reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and set a strong
benchmark for its funding.
Digital Spectrum for Public Service: Pioneers, Progress and Plans
Public broadcasting is also the only enterprise, Mr. Chairman, that
is committed to using the new digital technology to provide all
Americans with high quality educational programming services. We are
embracing digital television, with all its promise and all its
challenges, as a means of broadening and deepening our mission of
education, culture and citizenship. In a world of hundreds of channels
owned and programmed by conglomerates whose chief end is to maximize
worldwide profits, Congress has the opportunity to ensure that one
media service will use this public resource to serve the public
interest with noncommercial, educational content delivered by
independent, locally-owned community institutions.
PBS and its member stations officially raised the curtain on the
digital age last November with PBS Digital Week. PBS Digital Week
achieved four digital firsts:
<bullet> The first national broadcast of a television program shot and
edited in high definition--CHIHULY OVER VENICE, from KCTS
Seattle;
<bullet> The first broadcast of a program with enhanced digital
content--FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT, from WETA Washington and
Florentine Films;
<bullet> The first national program to inform general audiences about
digital television--DIGITAL TV--A CRINGELY CRASH COURSE, from
Oregon Public Broadcasting; and
<bullet> The launch of the first consumer-friendly digital TV website,
on PBS ONLINE.
We are now planning PBS Digital Week 2, slated for this fall. It
will feature both high definition and enhanced digital television
programs, online activities and a celebration of our 30th anniversary.
In addition to using the high-definition programming you have heard
so much about for our cultural and performance programs, we are
developing additional digital services with extensive educational
applications: multicast services, such as the PBS Kids Channel;
curriculum data services; and ``Enhanced Digital TV'' services. And in
just a moment, Mr. Chairman, we will demonstrate an example of what we
call ``Enhanced Digital TV.''
Public broadcasters have long been leaders in developing and
testing digital technology and we take seriously our role as an
educator here as well. In addition to A CRINGELY CRASH COURSE, and the
user-friendly DTV website I just mentioned, PBS today marks the end of
its DTV ``roadshow.'' Fifteen months ago, the PBS/Harris DTV Express
project sent a giant, 18-wheel demonstration truck nationwide
showcasing the dramatic potential of digital technology. It started on
Capitol Hill and today concludes a successful 40-city tour that
included a stop last December at Louisiana Public Broadcasting. The DTV
Express featured demonstrations of a fully operational digital
television studio, a ``living room of the future'' and ``a classroom of
the future,'' all housed inside the 66-foot tractor-trailer. More than
17,000 people toured the truck and more than 2,300 broadcast
professionals participated in DTV Express seminars along the way.
A Public-Private Partnership
Mr. Chairman, public television in America operates mostly on funds
from non-federal sources. We want and need federal support, however, to
maintain this superb public-private partnership and to make our
exciting digital plans a reality for all Americans. We are working hard
on our end. Seven PBS member stations are already on the air with a
digital signal and we anticipate that over 30 member stations will be
broadcasting in digital by the end of next year. Since last November,
PBS has been showcasing at least one HDTV program in primetime each
month. Building on last November's broadcast of FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT with
enhanced digital content, PBS has two additional enhanced digital
programs in development in 1999: ZOBOOMAFOO, the children's wildlife
program featuring Chris and Martin Kratt; and WONDERS OF THE AFRICAN
WORLD WITH HENRY LOUIS GATES, JR. More programs, featuring increasingly
complex and varied enhancements, are planned for next year. And this
September we will launch a new channel--the PBS Kids Channel--as an
interactive broadcast service available to our stations for digital
multicasting.
As of June 21--last week--our stations had raised over $250 million
for their digital transition, much of that total from states that
recognize the enormous contribution public television makes to their
educational systems. This is good news, but it is not enough. Our
transition costs are daunting--estimated at over $1.7 billion for the
hardware alone. We have pioneers to be sure, and we are determined to
raise most of the funds on our own, but many stations, especially in
smaller communities, are only in the earliest stages of assembling the
necessary resources. They need a federal contribution they can leverage
with other potential public and private funding sources, or they may
never make the transition. Universal service, if it is to continue,
depends on you and your colleagues, Mr. Chairman.
By November 1, commercial stations in the top 30 markets--reaching
over 50% of American TV households--are required to be on the air with
a digital signal. We anticipate that 17 public television stations will
be broadcasting digitally by the end of this year, reaching
approximately 25% of American TV households. We must keep pace with the
digital rollout of commercial broadcasters. If our signal is not
available to all households with digital televisions, the principle of
universal service upon which we were founded will be put in jeopardy,
and the principle of educational use of media will be a dream
unfulfilled.
To whet your appetite, we would like to share with you now a
striking example of what digital television can be. It helps
demonstrate, we believe, why continuing and enhancing the crucial
federal stake in public broadcasting is in the best interests of the
American people--and a great bargain. The following demonstration
involves an entirely new form of media: the fusion of broadcast
television with video, text, audio and graphic images into a new
service called ``Enhanced Digital TV''--not HDTV but EDTV. EDTV is a
central part of our plans for a vibrant digital future. It is a tool
that enables us to create entirely new, extremely powerful educational
applications, from preschool programs to distance learning to PBS's
most familiar signature series. Let's watch.
Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud again, in closing, your strong
commitment to public broadcasting and your leadership on behalf of
educational media. We at PBS are happy to join our colleagues today in
thanking you for your support in the past, and in urging your continued
support as we move into the digital future.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Duggan. That was an
excellent demonstration.
We are now pleased to welcome a star here, Mr. LeVar
Burton. Mr. Burton, your great work, many of us have followed
it, from Roots to Star Trek, to the excellent work you do with
Reading Rainbow. In fact, it was your performance in Roots that
inspired this Cajun boy to go back to Nova Scotia to find out
about my ancestors in Acadia. So I sort of journeyed like Kunta
Tauzin back in time. I found out from whence I came.
By the way, we were kicked out unceremoniously from Nova
Scotia, many of us put in indentured servitude and slavery in
other places unknown. We eventually gathered in Louisiana. As
we went through that awful experience in Kosovo, I reminded
some of my friends that I despised the British for all my life
for having kicked us out of Nova Scotia, until I went up there.
It's cold. It's very cold. Louisiana turned out to be a pretty
good place. Crawfish are a lot bigger there.
Mr. Burton, we appreciate your being with us, and we
welcome your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF LEVAR BURTON, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning.
And thank you to the other members of the committee. I
really enjoyed hearing people with jobs such as yours speak so
passionately about something that I also love and hold very
dear to my heart. I really appreciate the feelings and the
sentiments of the members of this committee, where continuing
appropriations for public broadcasting and the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting specifically are concerned.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the reference to Roots.
Because it is, after all, a primary example of just what this
medium offers us in terms of our ability to inspire and
enlighten ourselves. I truly believe that we have created with
this link, this global technological web that we have woven
around ourselves, the most powerful opportunity in the history
of humankind to not only educate ourselves and each other, but
really to lift ourselves up and light the way for each other.
That is after all at the end of the day what I believe this
medium is for. I have dedicated and committed the last 20 or so
years of my life to using the medium to its most powerful
potential imaginable.
As a father of a 19 year old and a 5 year old, during the
course of my career and my involvement with public
broadcasting, I have seen the landscape of television and the
way we use this medium change. The landscape is forever and
continually shifting. The one thing that has remained constant
in my experience is that the heart and the soul of the mission
of PBS has been unaltered over all of these years.
In fact, over the 30 years of its existence, it has always
been that shining light for how we can uplift ourselves and
light the way for one another. So the support that this
committee and the general body of Congress and the Federal
Government at large, the commitment that they have made over
the years is important. As we move forward into this age of
convergence, the convergence of the digital medium and the art
of storytelling, it is going to be increasingly more important
for us to receive your very benevolent support.
I can't stress strongly enough that the future is one of
our own making. The link between that which we imagine and that
which we manifest, that which we create in life, is
inextricable. I get the sense from you, Mr. Chairman, that you
are also a Star Trek fan.
I know that the reason we have in life today the flip
phone, that cell phone, is because some kid grew up watching
Star Trek and saw Captain Kirk reach behind to that place on
his hip and pull that thing out and call Scotty on the ship.
That kid then grew up, became an engineer and designed a device
that is as common to us today as the bread toaster.
So the link between that which we dream, that which we
imagine and that which we manifest is absolutely a part of the
human experience. The people who work in PBS have always
demonstrated that they have the ability to imagine the world in
a place that is healthy and safe for children. As we move
forward into this age of convergence, I know that it is those
people that you have been in this partnership with over the
years in terms of your funding support, those people are the
ones that are going to use these new digital technologies for
the greater good and benefit of America's children.
Your continued and undying support is not only appreciated,
but it is necessary and essential to America's kids. I thank
you.
[The prepared statement of LeVar Burton follows:]
Prepared Statement of LeVar Burton, Public Broadcasting Service
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
LeVar Burton. Thank you for inviting me to testify on an issue about
which I feel deeply: the importance of public television in the lives
of children.
You probably know that for years, I have produced and hosted a PBS
children's series called Reading Rainbow, which celebrates the wonder
of books. You may not know, however, that I once entered the seminary
and still have a tendency to preach. So this morning's testimony may
sound more like a sermon than a recitation on public policy. I hope you
don't mind.
In addition to my work for PBS, I have participated in the
commercial television business for many years, and it has been good to
me. I am proud of the things I and others have done in the commercial
arena that stir the imagination and encourage the soul. But commercial
television alone will never make the best use of this powerful and
pervasive medium, especially when it comes to children.
In the past three years, commercial television has discovered that
kids are good business, and new channels, video games and web sites
have flooded the marketplace. But all too often, the commercial media
has brought to the children's digital table the same old recipe that
created the need for public television three decades ago. They largely
provide content designed to seduce young viewers for relentless product
pitches from eager advertisers. What we need instead is content
designed to grow young minds into thoughtful individuals and caring
human beings.
That's where public television comes in and that's why I'm here
today. It's about the kids. It's about their future. About seeing in
every one of them a seed of greatness. And doing whatever we can--and
whatever it takes--to nurture that seed.
I come here today because I know what public television provides
stands in stark contrast to what our young people are learning from
commercial TV, the Internet, movies and today's music. Let's not kid
ourselves here . . . all of these media influences are educational. The
question is . . . ``What is it teaching and how does it impact the
world in which we live?''
On Monday of this week I attended a day-long seminar on children's
television sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the
University of Pennsylvania. The Annenberg Center released its annual
survey of the state of children's television, and the results speak for
themselves.
For the fourth year in a row, PBS programs were judged by far the
highest quality and most educational in all of television. The
researchers found no violence, no foul language, and no sexual innuendo
in any PBS series, and our programs presented a much wider diversity of
characters than could be found on other TV networks.
In addition to the uniquely valuable content of PBS programs,
public television is profoundly important for another reason. I remind
you that one out of every five American children still lives in
poverty. Few of them have access to the technology and resources that
can give them a better chance to make it in life. Only one broadcaster
is dedicated to reaching out, bridging that divide and creating an
accessible on-ramp for every child. That broadcaster, of course, is
PBS.
In a media landscape that is forever shifting, public television
has managed to maintain its commitment to the goals and ideals under
which the enterprise was originally conceived. Our mission has always
been to simply do what's best for children. And in the faithful
execution of that mission, we have earned and kept the public trust.
That trust is still strong and vibrant. Four years ago, the public
spoke up for public broadcasting when its federal funding was
threatened. And today, nearly 5 million Americans contribute to their
local public television stations, making ordinary citizens the largest
single source of revenue for public broadcasting.
Nonetheless, public television has reached a crossroads. It is
faced with the exciting opportunity--and daunting challenge--of making
the transition to digital broadcasting. You know how much it costs and
how difficult it will be for PBS and its stations to do it without
federal support.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appeal to you today to
do your part to keep public television a forceful and civilizing
alternative to the commercial media. It's a brave new digital world out
there--and public television requires your assistance both to survive
and to prosper. More important, America's children need your help to
keep alive the only television service that truly serves their needs.
As the saying goes, we have come too far, worked far too hard and
invested much too much to slow down or turn back now.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you. I would remind you, too, we have a
member of our body, our good friend from Ohio, who regularly in
the House calls upon Scotty to beam him up.
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. Kevin Klose, the
President and CEO of National Public Radio.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN KLOSE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO
Mr. Klose. Thank you very much. I am honored to be
testifying before you today, and thank you for your support and
authorization of this bill which our member stations fully
support and will work very hard to assist in any way they can
toward its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I was born in Canada, and fortunately, my
parents came south as well under perhaps different
circumstances.
I come before you today, this is the first time I have
appeared before this body in this capacity. I came to National
Public Radio from 25 years of journalism at the Washington Post
and former President of Radio Free Europe and former Director
of International Broadcasting for the U.S. Information Agency.
What brought me to National Public Radio was the notion of
direct public service to the people of the United States such
as is fulfilled every day by NPR, by its great journalists and
cultural presenters.
I think in the 7 months I have been at NPR, I've looked at
our coverage of the Kosovo crisis and tragedy, at our coverage
of future events and of the past in America, program segments
such as Lost and Found Sound, which appears every week and
recaptures sound from the past century of the sound era, and
presents it in new ways to our listeners and to the citizens of
the United States.
I think as well of the presentations of Performance Today,
which presented the Martin Luther King Memorial Concert in
Atlanta, and received nationwide an astonishing response for
the power and majesty of that concert in January. National
Public Radio binds us together as a Nation, as a democracy and
as communities in unique ways. We are a membership
organization, as you know, with more than 600 stations among
our membership, more than 350 direct members. It is a unique
organization that reflects the dynamism, the multicultural,
multifaceted nature of our extraordinarily changing democracy.
As we go forward into the new era of digital, we go forward
with the commitment with our colleagues in public broadcasting,
understanding that NPR is not only a public service, but as Mr.
Markey said, a national treasure. It has a unique relationship
to listeners and to citizens in this country, because radio is
a unique medium.
As a former print journalist who has spent most of this
decade in radio broadcast, I can tell you that the unique power
of radio to reach people is that we are a companion to people.
We are not just a neighbor or friend or information service,
because radio is ephemeral, you can be doing other things in
your lives while listening to the radio. It can present ideas
to you with impact and continuity and contact with your life
that cannot be matched by any other medium.
As we look forward in the digital age, we are reaching out
with support of CPB and with the involvement and interactivity
of our member stations to address the digital age in new ways.
We recently signed a series of agreements with such digital
partners as Microsoft, AOL Online, Apple and others to find new
ways to present our powerful materials which help the Nation in
its democratic dialog and present ideas and issues in unique
and relevant ways. We have recently signed an agreement to
create two channels of news and information and current affairs
broadcasting and entertainment broadcasting on a new satellite
radio corporation called CD Radio, which will be available soon
in automobiles, new models, and as it is retrofitted into
current models. We see that as an enormously promising new
secondary way that we can reach audiences and bring audiences
to our member stations in unique ways.
We also have created a very powerful presence on the
internet. We will continue to develop our internet presence, so
that member stations can find and link both to new partners in
the internet cyberworld and also find audiences in new ways
that will bring to those audiences the presence of our local
stations in their own web site with powerful identities and
powerful presences. National Public Radio must be a partner
with many new partners in this new world, and we will go
forward with your support, sir, and with the support of our
colleagues in public broadcasting.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Kevin Klose follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Kloss, President and CEO, National Public
Radio
introduction
Chairman Tauzin, Congressman Markey and other members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak to you on behalf of
National Public Radio (NPR) and the nearly 600 public radio stations
airing NPR programming across the country. This is my first opportunity
to address you since joining NPR as President and CEO in December of
last year. As you know, NPR is a private nonprofit organization that
produces and distributes shows such as Morning Edition<SUP>'</SUP>, All
Things Considered<SUP>'</SUP>, Performance Today<SUP>'</SUP>, and
distributes Car Talk and FRESH AIR.
We are also a membership organization, representing approximately
600 noncommercial educational radio stations throughout the United
States. NPR member stations are independent and autonomous, licensed to
a variety of non-profit organizations, communities, colleges,
universities and other institutions. The majority of NPR member
stations are licensed to educational institutions.
Thank you for holding this hearing and providing a chance to
comment on the authorization of public broadcasting. Recently I was
quoted in Broadcasting and Cable magazine, saying that NPR ``is beyond
public service--it's a national treasure.'' I truly believe that. We
have been successful, working in partnership with our local stations,
to intertwine national programming from NPR and other programming
sources with local voices and stories that connect listeners to their
communities. Each member station is guided by the shared public service
mission to educate, inform, entertain and designs its format to best
serve its audience.
For over thirty years, public radio has set the standard for
comprehensive and enlightened reporting, as well as the production of
cultural programs that celebrate the human experience. Public radio is
not driven by what will necessarily garner the highest ratings, rather,
we are committed to reaching listeners in unique ways and promoting
discussion on important subjects that may not otherwise receive
mainstream attention. Through your support on a variety of issues,
especially the funding challenge of a few years ago, we have been able
to continue to produce and air programs that enrich, engage, and
entertain the American public.
Like our friends in public television, NPR and its member stations
are excited about the possibilities of digital service and ``new
media''. We are eager to work with Congress in this area of new
technologies. There are wonderful ways public broadcasting can better
serve the American public by embracing developing technologies.
Five years ago we created a New Media department at NPR. Our goal
was simple, to extend NPR programming into the online arena and create
new interactive opportunities using the latest technology. Utilizing
our resources and collaborating with third party partners, we are well
positioned to expand our outreach to the American public, provide
additional educational and information services for current audiences
and work alongside our stations so that they can do the same.
Our main Web site now has about 300 thousand users a week who view
nearly one million pages and listen (through their computers) to 200
thousand audio files. In the last year we formed strategic alliances
with America Online and Yahoo. We are also working with Microsoft to
help our member stations begin online audio streaming. The future is
exciting and we will be a part of it.
Only weeks ago, NPR joined in an agreement with CD Radio that will
enable NPR, member stations and independent producers to develop
innovative programs for a national satellite radio service. Estimates
place CD radio's potential audience in excess of 20 million U.S.
listeners within five years.
The agreement with CD Radio offers many benefits to member stations
including the opportunity to gain a national audience for locally-
produced programs, acquire new listeners through cross-promotion,
access research generated by CD Radio and NPR, and share in potential
new revenues. NPR has already requested and received-program
submissions from member stations for the new satellite radio channels,
and will be requesting additional submissions in the coming months.
These initiatives have been taken with the concurrence of our Board
of Directors, 10 of the 17 directors are station managers from across
the country.
Public broadcasting has always been a federal/local partnership. We
hope the final authorization legislation will continue to support and
enhance this important partnership.
objectives
Continued federal support through the authorizations of public
broadcasting programs, specifically the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program
(PTFP), as well as authorizing a new digital public broadcasting
program, are vital to continuing the important work of public
broadcasting.
Reauthorizing CPB--Thank you for recognizing the importance of
reauthorizing CPB, which has been without an authorization since 1996.
At that time, the amount approved for the program was $425 million. We
support an authorization level of 40 percent of non-federal financial
support, not to exceed $475 million a year for fiscal years 2002-2006.
CPB grants are essential to maintaining the vital role our stations
play in their communities. The majority of CPB dollars designated for
public radio go directly to local stations to support local
programming, community outreach activities, and local artistic and
cultural organizations. Funds from CPB allow public radio to reach
underserved populations with programming such as radio reading services
for the blind and quality news and cultural programming to rural
communities often bypassed by cable and satellite services. In this day
of consolidation of commercial radio ownership, there is an even
greater need for the localism that has long characterized public radio.
According to the latest CPB ``Public Broadcasting Revenue Report
for Fiscal Year 1997'', federal money accounts for fifteen percent of
public radio's revenue, a small but important piece of the funding pie.
The largest single portion of public radio revenue is from listeners'
contributions, accounting for twenty-nine percent. Business support
accounts for fourteen percent, universities and colleges nineteen
percent and foundations seven percent. Support also comes from state
and local governments (five percent and three percent, respectively).
For Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, public radio cost each American
twenty-three cents a year. This is less than the cost of a public
telephone call or an edition of most daily newspapers. A 1997 Roper
Starch Worldwide poll showed, when given a choice of 20 services,
Americans judged public radio and television the second and third best
value in return for federal tax dollars spent. Military defense ranked
first.
As stated earlier, after CPB administrative costs, almost all of
the federal money is directed to local stations. Public radio receives
twenty-five percent of the federal appropriation and public television
receives seventy-five percent. Of radio's portion, ninety-three percent
goes directly to local public radio stations. The other seven percent
of radio funds remains in a CPB fund to support national programming
through a competitive grant process. CPB funding assists public
broadcasting stations to produce local programming and to purchase
national programs.
Stations rely on federal funding to acquire a variety of quality
noncommercial educational programming. Cultural programs such as
Performance Today<SUP>'</SUP> offer listeners thoughtful insights into
the world of classical music together with great concert performances.
To mark the dawn of the new millennium, NPR has begun airing a
year-long series called Lost and Found Sound<SUP>'</SUP>. Two of the
most notable installments aired so far were the ``Gettysburg
Eyewitness'' and ``Lindbergh, Collie, and Me''. The former featured a
unique recording of William V. Rathvon, who as a nine-year-old boy,
watched and listened as Abraham Lincoln delivered his address at
Gettysburg in November 1863. The story was told in 1938 and recorded on
a 78 r.p.m. record. The second story showcased Minnesotan Xandra Kalman
and her husband Collie, who were on vacation in Paris on May 21, 1927.
It was her wish to be at Le Bourget Field when Charles Lindbergh landed
there that day . . . and she was. She later told the story to her
children and grandchildren and recorded it on audio cassette. Included
in this series is the ``Quest for Sound,'' a call to NPR listeners to
send in their home recordings of sounds of the last one hundred years.
Their contributions will be the basis of stories that capture the
rituals and sounds of everyday American life over the last century.
For public radio, every federal dollar leverages over $5 from non-
federal sources. That is a five to one return on the federal investment
in quality programs and services, making it perhaps, one of the best
investments of tax dollars. Federal money is crucial because it helps
public radio stations plan, produce and acquire programs that attract
non-federal funding sources.
Reauthorizing CPB for the amount and years proposed will help
strengthen the system for the future.
Reauthorizing PTFP--Reauthorization of PTFP, the only federal
capital improvements program for public broadcasting, is essential.
This small but effective program is an excellent example of a public/
private partnership that works. It operates on a matching grants basis
and to date, it is the only federal program making funds available for
the acquisition of digital equipment, while also maintaining analog
service. It is administered by the National Information
Telecommunications Administration (NTIA), within the Department of
Commerce. It is fitting that PTFP resides with the agency charged with
spectrum management and thus has the technical expertise to make
informed engineering decisions, especially on a case-by-case basis. Its
history makes it an excellent candidate to help public broadcasters
transition from analog to digital broadcasting, without duplicating a
spectrum technical staff elsewhere in the government.
One of the hallmarks of the program is its dedication to rural
service. In fact, grants for bringing first service to a region are
given the highest priority. According to NTIA, a public radio signal
reaches 90% of America, while a public television signal reaches 95% of
our nation's population. The technological revolution has yet to reach
many of these regions, cable wires have yet to be laid and digital
satellite service is still too expensive for wide-spread use. For these
areas, public radio may be the only source of affordable news and
cultural programming available.
Our NPR member stations are counting on PTFP to help them prepare
for a digital future, while at the same time keep them on the air
broadcasting in analog. Since 1984, the program has financed over 700
public radio projects, totaling nearly $60 million. Many of you serving
on this subcommittee have had the opportunity to write in support of
PTFP grants and understand the importance of continuing this operation.
Public broadcasting supports a PTFP reauthorization of $35 million
in fiscal year 2000, $110 million in fiscal year 2001, $100 million in
fiscal year 2002, $89 million in fiscal year 2003 and such sums as may
be necessary for 2004.
Authorizing a Digital Public Broadcasting Program--The inclusion of
a substantial digital authorization will be a key element of this
legislation. We are excited about our move into the digital age and the
opportunities and challenges before us. As you know, public
broadcasters estimate that the total digital conversion will be $1.7
billion.
So far public radio has identified an estimated $70 million in
digital broadcast related costs. Our early numbers indicate $60 million
is needed to assist in public radio's conversion to digital
transmission and at least $11 million to help stations defray tower
dislocation costs and maintain analog broadcasts.
Digital Radio--While public television is operating under a mandate
to convert to digital broadcasting by 2003, public radio has no similar
directive. However, a decision on digital radio transmission technology
is just around the corner. Currently, the U.S. is in the process of
developing a technical standard for digital radio with efforts centered
on In-band, On-Channel or ``IBOC''. Conversion to digital transmission
as is now occurring in Europe, Canada and Australia, however, is only a
part of the final link in the digital revolution taking place
worldwide. As the communications marketplace experiences even greater
growth, public radio must be poised to take advantage of new and
emerging digital production, transmission and distribution technologies
that can offer programming services to listeners in ways not previously
imagined.
The transmission technology currently at the forefront is commonly
called ``Digital Audio Broadcasting'' (DAB) which delivers compact
disc-quality sound free of interference and noise to listeners. DAB
will allow radio stations to upgrade their delivery of audio
programming. For example, digital radio will provide more reliable AM
and FM transmissions, less subject to the effects of geography, terrain
and man-made interference. This feature is particularly important in
rural areas, where there would be little or no broadcast service
without public broadcasting. Moreover, digital will permit public
stations to transmit ``smart radio'' signals that deliver data messages
along with the audio program. Digital data may be used to provide
continuous specialized information, such as weather, traffic, music
titles, program or emergency information on a local basis, in a wide
variety of forms, text, audio and graphics.
Impact of DTV on public radio--Allow me to explain about the impact
of DTV conversion on public radio stations. Congress' mandate to
convert television stations to DTV will result in many radio stations
currently co-located on a television tower having to move from these
leased towers. Many public radio stations' transmitters are located on
broadcast towers owned by television stations.
As television stations convert to digital, they are adding new
digital transmitter antennas to their existing towers that enable them
to launch digital broadcasts. Meanwhile, television is required by the
government to maintain existing transmission equipment on these towers
in order to continue offering an analog service. If there is no room
left on a tower or if it is unable to support the combined weight or
size of the new and the existing transmitter antennas, public radio
stations will be forced to move. There are two options, lease space on
another tower or build a new one.
Although it is still too early to know all the factors involved in
such forced relocations, our stations surveyed report at least $11
million in costs overall to maintain current broadcasts. Again, this
cost estimate will surely change as DTV conversion progresses and radio
stations have a better sense of their tower situations. The actual
costs will depend on the actions of other commercial and public
television and radio stations.
conclusion
Public broadcasting is poised to deliver bold new services through
new technologies, but our goals cannot be realized without continued
federal financial support. Passage of legislation that includes CPB and
PTFP reauthorization, as well the creation of a new digital public
broadcasting program will demonstrate your commitment to public
broadcasting's future. We do not want to be left behind; the investment
is too great, the potential too enormous to ignore. As we approach the
dawn of a new millennium, public radio looks forward to working with
you to create an even more dynamic and vibrant system to serve an ever-
expanding listenership in our ever-changing America.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Klose.
Next we have David Brugger, the President and CEO of
America's Public Television Stations. David, welcome, and we
welcome your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. BRUGGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICA'S PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS
Mr. Brugger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent America's
public television stations across the country. We thank you
very much not only for your introduction but for Mr. Markey's
co-sponsorship and all of the co-sponsors today who are signing
onto this bill.
It is certainly a critical need. Like Congress, public
broadcasters are rooted in their local communities. I spend a
lot of my time, probably a good 40 percent sometimes, more of
my time on the road, working with local boards and local
stations. A lot of my job is to work with them in terms of
facilitating their own strategic planning. I listen to their
concerns, I work with them on helping them plan for the future
in terms of being a resource of what is going on, what the
expectations are from Washington, and listen to what their
expectations are.
A lot of times I think we forget that these are just local
citizens who are volunteering their time, thousands of them on
the board and hundreds of thousands of them who are
volunteering their time for all kinds of work at the local
stations. They are involved not just to help raise money. They
are really involved because they are concerned about the
services, how is their community going to be represented, what
kinds of local productions can they do that will help all of
the institutions in their community. Many of the boards are
very representative of all of their communities in terms of the
social institutions, the businesses, and others who care about
public media.
What they are looking for, of course, is also the Federal
participation. They know what they can raise and what they are
doing at the local level, they know how they are helping to get
dollars from their States. But they are very concerned about
the critical funding and the leverage that Federal funds
support, and the matching basis that they can then use as a
Federal commitment to go out and raise other funds.
That is why this reauthorization is so critical, especially
for stations in the smallest communities. For some of the
larger stations, it may represent about 10 to 14 percent of
their budget. When you get out into the small stations in the
rural communities, you're talking about going up to 40 percent
of their budget are the Federal dollars that they are now
getting in community service grants through the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting.
That is why this bill is so important. Because it really
looks at three different components here. It has the CPB
community service grant. It has the funds that stations are
using for local programming in terms of their local community,
the production costs and the way to help them survive and to
get PBS services.
They are also looking at digital television. Somebody
mentioned before that we are looking at a three-pronged effort
here. We are looking at $770 million from the Federal
Government as a matching fund, out of a total of $1.7 billion
that the stations have to raise in order to convert to digital.
We are also looking at what the possibilities of that are. As I
work with station boards, they are planning right now on what
they can do with all of those channels. They are looking at
children's channels for preschool. They are looking at K-12 in
terms of high school education, college credit courses that
they want to work with their local community colleges and other
universities in helping the adult learner continue their
education.
They are certainly looking at the local public affairs
possibilities. They have sort of what they are calling the
state span or city span sometimes with the school boards and a
lot of the other institutions in town, so that the citizens of
that community can learn more about their public institutions
and be more involved as responsible citizens.
They are also looking at the possibilities for interactive
data, for the teacher support, for the outreach that they are
able to do with other community institutions as they fight
youth violence, drug abuse and other issues in their
communities.
The third component, of course, is the facilities program
that has been so key to all of the stations over the years. The
facilities program started in 1962, even before there was a
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, helped start to build the
steel and wire structures that are broadcasting to your local
communities. Now we are looking again for that kind of matching
help, so that stations can really serve their communities with
this kind of digital technology in sort of the unlimited ways
that we do not even know at this point all of the possibilities
that this technology can bring to local communities.
So we thank you very much for this bill, and we thank you
for recognizing the critical needs of the stations.
[The prepared statement of David J. Brugger follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Brugger, President and CEO, America's
Public Television Stations; Beth Courtney, President and CEO, Louisiana
Public Broadcasting, Chairman, Board of Trustees, America's Public
Television Stations; and David Liroff, Vice President and Chief
Technology Officer, WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston, Member, Board
of Trustees, America's Public Television Stations
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the
subcommittee for your past support for public broadcasting. Local
stations have built a priceless asset--a public broadcasting system
that reaches virtually the entire country over the air and free(and
brings educational and informational programs to urban and rural
America with the help and support of Congress.
Like members of Congress, public broadcasters are representatives
of, and deeply rooted in, our local communities. We are responsive to
the unique concerns of our citizens--from urban neighborhoods to rural
countryside and everything in between. With the help of this committee,
public broadcasters will continue to hold their place in this
aggressively commercial multimedia culture as the one publicly
supported, nonprofit institution dedicated to education, culture and
citizenship.
I am testifying today to ask the subcommittee to reauthorize two
very important programs for public television--the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Telecommunications Facilities
Program (PTFP), and to create a new grant program to assist public
broadcasters in the conversion to digital broadcasting.
The Prologue
With roots going back to the earliest days of radio and television,
America's public broadcasters have played a unique role in a media
industry otherwise built on consumer advertising and mass market
entertainment. Into the 1960s, as television evolved into three major
networks and a handful of independent commercial stations, publicly
funded television provided the one clear alternative, focusing on
education and culture, public affairs and the performing arts. In 1967
Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act as an amendment to the
Communications Act of 1934. With this legislation Congress laid the
cornerstone for the future of noncommercial educational broadcasting.
Of course, commercial television had popular shows and beloved
characters--the best of them are woven into the fabric of our culture.
But only public television could introduce children to a Mr. Rogers,
Big Bird or Kermit; provide a front-row seat at Masterpiece Theatre, a
day on a Civil War battlefield or a night at the opera. Freed of
commercial constraints, public broadcasting forged an award-winning
record of educational value and pioneering innovation built on
quality--a quality that viewers appreciated and to which other
broadcasters aspired.
Now, with the advent of powerful new digital technologies, the
media world has begun a new, exponential expansion--allowing the
commercial marketplace to slice the audience into even smaller niches.
But if past history and recent experience are any guides, more channels
don't necessarily mean more quality choices.
The Digital Age
The world of media and telecommunications is undergoing an historic
transition to a new technical standard of digital broadcast. Unlike
today's broadcast system, digital technology allows a quantum leap in
the amount of information that can be sent at any one time on a single
channel. Many think of digital as ``High Definition TV''--a movie
screen-like picture of breathtaking clarity and detail. But those of us
in public television are even more excited about the other features of
digital technology.
For public broadcasting, the expanded digital spectrum allows us to
break free from today's technological limits on the amount and variety
of educational programming we can make available to Americans of all
ages.
For example, a local public television station could--on any given
day--broadcast a slate of award-winning learning programs like Arthur,
Barney and Friends, and Sesame Street--all designed to help pre-school
children develop the social and intellectual foundations for success in
the classroom.
And during the very same hours, the same station could broadcast a
whole curriculum of high-school and college-credit and professional
development telecourses--from American history and plant biology, to
marketing communications and social psychology--all designed to put
lifelong learning within reach of every adult in America.
At the same moment, the same station could also provide regular
coverage of state and local government, congressional town meetings and
school board debates--all designed to help restore a sense of active
citizenship that's essential for a healthy democracy.
That same station could continue to broadcast an eclectic mix of
programs that entertain and enlighten, inspire curiosity and improve
daily life. All of these programming choices would come with an
interactive stream of data--from study guides and classroom materials
to expert advice and legislative information--transforming the TV set
from an appliance for passive viewing into a tool for active learning.
Mississippi ETV is one of at least seven public television
stations currently broadcasting an experimental digital signal.
Digital television will not only offer additional channels for
TV programs but will also allow for expansion of current
services and provide avenues to reach out to audiences beyond
broadcast via electronic technologies. For example, Mississippi
ETV is currently developing a CD-ROM to accompany the linear
ITV (Instructional Television) series Media Mania. With digital
technology, the CD-ROM can be accessed through enhanced TV
along with the television lessons. Web site development to
provide additional information about the programs adds to the
impact of traditional TV productions.
An Unfunded Mandate
For the entire television industry, the eventual promise of digital
may be great, but the start-up will take a major capital investment in
new transmitters, cameras, videotape decks and other expensive
equipment. Implementing the 1997 budget reconciliation legislation, the
Federal Communications Commission has determined that public television
stations must begin broadcasting a digital signal by 2003. The public
broadcasting industry estimates the total cost of conversion to be $1.7
billion.
Public television stations are seeking $770 million over five years
in federal assistance, about 45 percent of the total estimated
conversion costs. We are seeking funds through the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) at the Department of
Commerce as well as the Corporation. The PTFP funding will help local
stations to construct basic ``pass through'' facilities. For a station
to customize a national program schedule to meet the needs of its local
communities and to insert its own programs, however, additional ``local
insertion'' equipment will have to be installed. Stations are seeking
the funds for this equipment through the additional funds requested at
CPB. These funds will also assist in the production of new digital
programming.
It is imperative that public broadcasters get a significant
commitment from Congress this year in the form of an authorization.
Some stations have already started to convert in order to comply with
the FCC deadline and will need federal assistance to complete their
efforts. These stations also are incurring the additional costs of
broadcasting in two formats. Other stations, especially those in small
towns and rural areas, cannot even consider major equipment purchases
until they obtain a firm financial commitment from Congress. Without
federal help, these stations will not be able to construct digital
facilities and will go dark after the transition period when Congress
reclaims their analog channels.
To fulfill this mandate, public broadcasters are doing their part,
seeking financial support from a range of public and private sources--
foundations and corporations, loyal viewers, entrepreneurial endeavors,
and state and local government partners. To date, public TV stations
have raised more than $160 million from state and local governments to
enable their transition to digital.
Individual stations are undertaking major fundraising campaigns to
raise the majority of capital needed to meet the conversion mandate.
But fulfilling the public service goals for digital TV clearly depends
on the federal government playing its historic leadership role in
committing funds. Federal support sends a signal to these potential
funders that there is indeed a real and urgent need for support to
ensure the viability of public television in the digital era.
For publicly chartered, nonprofit institutions, which, by design,
lack access to private capital markets and commercial advertising
revenue, the digital transition presents a dangerous double bind.
Diverting resources from existing educational programs that these
funders already support threatens services on which Americans have come
to rely. But failing to make the investment would mean many would be
denied the enormous educational promise of digital television.
Reauthorizing public television funding, including a special
authorization of $770 million (over five years) to help defray less
than one-half the cost of the digital transition, is more than a matter
of the public need or federal responsibility. It is essential to
ensuring that this remarkable new technology fulfills its advertised
potential for improving the lives of American families and communities.
For more than three decades Congress has made a long-term capital
investment in a technologically competitive public television system.
Since 1962 it has provided funding for a facilities program, initially
as a result of the Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962.
Currently, the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) is
administered through the Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Between 1991 and 1993 Congress made an additional investment in a
new national satellite interconnection and in the local facilities
needed to make it work. This has been a wise investment in American
communities, as local public stations have used these facilities to
provide valued educational and public service programming. It makes no
sense to allow this unique resource to wither when the potential future
benefit is even greater. This year Congress also appropriated money for
the replacement of the NPR satellite that failed last year.
Innovative Uses of Technology in the Public Interest
Public television's values will not change in a digital world. We
will build on our track record of providing the best programming and
services to educate and enlighten audiences. We pioneered the nightly
in-depth news discussion program, the dramatic mini-series and the
history and science documentaries that have all been copied on
commercial broadcast and cable networks. We also will continue to be a
leader in using new technology for the public interest. Public
television was the first to provide closed captioning, the first
television network to have a digital satellite distribution system, the
first to use descriptive video for the sight impaired, and the first to
develop descriptive video and stereo broadcasting. In fact, WTTW
Chicago was the co-inventor of stereo broadcasting (with Telesonics)
and was the first television station to broadcast in stereo.
Public broadcasters are already developing prototype educational
applications for digital technology without regard to whether the
application has quick or guaranteed financial return.
In Chicago, WTTW will be able to extend the outreach of its
community programming initiatives 100-fold, allowing for
greater viewer access and interaction. Digital technology will
position WTTW as a central learning hub linking it with other
institutions throughout Illinois to strengthen their respective
missions. For example, WTTW's arts programming (including its
award winning weekly series, Artbeat,) can be linked digitally
with the Art Institute of Chicago and other web sites, allowing
viewers to print out materials on a related topic directly from
their digital television printer or computer.
Local public television stations and PBS have joined together to
create the award winning PBS ONLINE, one of the largest and most
popular Web sites anywhere on the net. We have more than 30,000 pages
of information related to public television programming and links to
companion sites, as well as a wealth of original material that
encourages both informal and formal learning. With digital television,
this material can be made available to all Americans.
Children's Educational Services
Public television continues to be honored as the leader in quality,
educational, non-violent programming for children. Local public
television stations implement the PBS Ready to Learn Service by
combining seven to nine hours per day of quality children's programming
with the kind of hands-on human outreach that is essential for
effective teaching and nurturing of preschoolers. It's specifically
designed to ensure that every child arrives at school with the basic
tools necessary for success in the classroom.
The Ready to Learn Service has grown to 127 participating stations
reaching more than 93 million homes. In the past four years, Ready to
Learn stations have conducted more than 8,572 workshops in their
service areas. Local station outreach coordinators have trained more
than 300,000 parents and childcare providers, caregivers and educators
to use the programs to reinforce learning skills ultimately reaching an
estimated 37 million children across the country. With digital
technology Ready to Learn and other K-12 services can be expanded and
enhanced.
The KQED Educational Service in San Francisco operates one of the
largest instructional television (ITV) services in the country, serving
2,500 schools, 28,000 educators and over 620,000 students with hundreds
of video programs. With teacher input on the selection of programs,
KQED licenses and broadcasts more than 80 instructional television
(ITV) series--over 1000 individual episodes.
In Southern California, KCET sponsors the Ready to Learn Preschool
Education Project, a comprehensive educational outreach project that
focuses around multiple PBS children's programs such as Sesame Street,
Storytime and Puzzle Place. Over the past five years, the KCET
Community Relations and Outreach department has been actively working
with families in the community to motivate young children to learn.
KCET is particularly invested in helping children from low income or
limited English speaking communities and in enriching the knowledge and
educational resources of preschool and elementary educators and
childcare providers who serve these children. To date, through its
Ready to Learn Service, KCET has conducted over 111 teacher training
workshops in both in English and in Spanish, trained over 3,650
teachers and in turn reaching over 22,000 children in Southern and
Central California
Mississippi ETV's Ready to Learn service is designed to help
parents, teachers, and other caregivers use public television to help
children love learning, thereby advancing the national education goal
that all American children start school ``ready to learn.''
In one three-month period Mississippi ETV conducted 23 statewide
workshops reaching 1,056 participants and distributing 700 books to
children. In K-12 education (from 1994 to 1997), Mississippi ETV helped
to train 16,000 teachers in 1,270 schools and reaching over half a
million students.
Partnerships help Mississippi ETV extend its reach. For example, in
conjunction with NASA /Stennis Space Center, Mississippi ETV has
provided teacher training and sponsored the Interactive Video classroom
and Remote Sensing Awareness Project. Working with Mississippi State
University Mississippi ETV has developed a web site for online
Calculus.
Studies conducted with children, families and caregivers who have
participated in Ready to Learn show that parents who have attended a
Ready to Learn workshop read with their children for longer periods,
read more for educational or informational purposes and took children
to the library or bookstore more often than they had prior to the
workshop. Parents and children do not get that kind of hands-on support
from commercial broadcast or cable networks.
Highest quality, non-violent programs
Earlier this month Congress engaged in a significant debate on the
possible contributing factors to a culture of youth violence. We
commend Congress for devoting time and thoughtful discussion to this
important and timely topic. We respectively suggest to this committee
that continued support for public television be considered as part of
the answer. The actions of this committee can provide parents with a
guaranteed safe haven and alternative to commercial media.
In recent years, a level of violence and vulgarity that would have
been unimaginable in previous generations has coarsened our popular
culture. From ``Jerry Springer'' and ``Mortal Kombat'' to Marilyn
Manson and ``gangsta rap,'' much of what kids see and hear in the
commercial media presents a special challenge not only to responsible
parents, but to everyone who cares about the education and early
development of our young people. For they see the effect in the
classroom and schoolyard, on city streets and suburban malls--in a
decreased receptivity to learning, a lessened respect for authority and
a diminished regard for distinction and greatness. Indeed, even as
crime rates have come down, youth violence continues to grow.
The quality of our popular culture and its corrosive impact on
children is a concern that transcends politics and party labels. And
whether or not one looks for answers in more responsible parenting or
more responsible leadership in the movie, music and television
industries, one demonstrable, unalterable fact remains: public
television is the one and only place parents can depend on for quality,
educational, non-violent programming for children.
The public television's line-up of children's programs was honored
with more children's Daytime Emmy Awards in 1998 than all of the
commercial broadcast and cable networks combined and just recently
received more awards than any of the cable and broadcast networks at
the 1999 Daytime Emmy's. It's a line-up of programs that doesn't need
warning labels. Instead, they offer welcome mats of educational value
to children and safe harbors for concerned parents. While the
commercial broadcast networks strain to meet the FCC requirement of
three hours of high-quality, educational programs per week, most public
television stations broadcast seven to nine hours of quality children's
program per day.
Public television programs are created and produced to teach
children how to read and do math, learn history and science, as well as
help them develop the critical skills to learn from adults and interact
with their peers. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University
of Pennsylvania, in its June 1998 analysis of children's television,
found that ``PBS was the only venue that was virtually violence-free in
its children's programming.''
A recent addition to the Ready to Learn schedule is ``Zoboomafoo,''
a new wildlife series for preschoolers. It was created by the Kratt
Brothers, hosts and creators of the internationally acclaimed ``Kratts
Creatures.'' The ``Zoboomafoo'' Web site goes beyond the traditional
uses of interactivity, featuring sound and animation, songs and animal
games and is proving especially popular with young children.
In short, at a time when a primary focus of our national concerns
and public investment is on improving the lives and futures of the
youngest Americans, there is no better investment than in the only
Digital TV system that truly puts children first.
Adult Learning and Training
Public television actively contributes to the competitiveness of
our nation's economy and to workers' productivity by providing a
variety of educational services and programs for adult learners. Nearly
90 million American adults lack the higher level reading skills
frequently demanded in the workplace.
The GED ON TV program is an excellent example of what public
television does best. Produced by the Kentucky Network since 1975 and
currently offered by 54 percent of public television stations, the GED
ON TV series has had a tremendous impact on the nation's economy. Over
the past five years, more than two million people across the nation
have enrolled in GED ON TV. The estimated economic impact of these more
productive workers exceeds $12 billion.
Following state budget cuts, the Georgia Department of Corrections
started to offer GED using the KET programs. Today the course is
offered at 18 male and three female institutions. Last year 3,200
inmates took the test. They also use KET's ``Teach an Adult to Read''
series which helps inmates become tutors, resulting in ``an increase in
self-esteem,'' among inmates.
<bullet> Louisiana Public Broadcasting even offers courses to help
teachers teach better. The PBS Mathline online service helps math
teachers learn new teaching skills and incorporate National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards through video clips
demonstrating best practices and electronic messaging with peers around
the country.
<bullet> Project Interact, a joint effort of LPB, Southeastern
Louisiana University and the Louisiana Department of Education, is a
satellite telecourse that helps teachers become certified in Special
Education.
<bullet> Through the National Teacher Training Institutes, LPB
demonstrates hands-on, interactive ways to use online technology and
instructional video in math and science classrooms. LPB also houses the
Louisiana Educational Technology Resource Center, established by the
legislature in 1996. The LETRC helpdesk assists teachers and
administrators with questions about implementing technology in their
schools. LETRC also provides free, hands-on Internet training for
teachers in the eight-parish Baton Rouge area.
In the future, with the expanded educational possibilities of
Digital TV, the long-term impact on the nation's economic productivity
can be extraordinary.
The U.S. Department of Education has committed $15 million to the
five-year PBS initiative ``Literacy Link,'' which will combine video
and on-line service to help those adults improve their learning and
workplace skills while providing teachers with on-line guides to
materials; video conferences and other professional development aids.
Every year distance-learning telecourses are broadcast by public TV
stations and beamed by satellite from PBS and the CPB/Annenberg Project
to two-thirds of the colleges and universities in the United States. In
1998-99, roughly 500,000 adult degree candidates participated in those
courses--a marvelous use of technology on a scale unimaginable only a
few years ago. Since 1981 more than 4 million adults have earned
college credit using public television's Adult Learning Service
telecourses.
A particular project of the PBS Adult Learning Service is one
called ``Going the Distance,'' which enables students to earn a degree
through college credit telecourses. During 1997-98, 62 public
television stations in partnership with 180 colleges in 40 states
offered the service and the first student to earn a college degree
using Going the Distance courses graduated in May 1998.
conclusion
For more than 30 years Congress has invested wisely in public
broadcasting. We now have a strong system of public television stations
that reaches 99 percent of American households, giving viewers tools to
improve and enrich their lives.
As we move into the digital era and a new millennium, the potential
for expanded lifelong learning opportunities for all Americans using
the resources and expertise of public television is limitless. We urge
this committee to renew its leadership role and authorize funding for
CPB, PTFP and digital conversion to ensure that public television
stations remain viable in the 21st century.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, David.
Next, clearly one of my favorite presenters of all time,
Ms. Beth Courtney, President of Louisiana Network. Beth is not
just my favorite naturally, but we have to be friends, she is
now in possession of the most dangerous bit of video tape that
I have ever produced in my life. Beth, I promise to be your
friend forever if you will never make copies of that thing.
Ms. Courtney.
STATEMENT OF BETH COURTNEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, LOUISIANA NETWORK
Ms. Courtney. Mr. Tauzin refers to, one of the things we do
of course around the country is we do public affairs programs.
We had a conversation about various forms of tax reform. I have
wonderful video tape on him that indeed, as you go out in live
television, it is an exciting opportunity but fraught with
difficulties.
I will tell you, it is a pleasure to be here this morning.
I was there at a hearing that was not quite as friendly. Many
of us remember that. Mr. Burton and I were both testifying,
it's where I called him Geordi, I was humiliating my daughter
the entire time by calling him by the wrong name. I'm glad to
have the opportunity this morning to actually speak to all of
you and thank you so much for your support.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Markey, and the other members of this
committee, it is a wonderful opportunity to be here to tell you
how excited we are about this new digital environment, and also
to tell you that we are making active plans. One hundred
seventy-five million dollars has been committed by 21 States
already, looking to you for some sort of also Federal match in
this exciting partnership. In Louisiana, we just ended our
session, yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am, we're polite in
Louisiana. And they also appropriated $3 million for our
conversion, with a commitment to do even more.
We have had commitments from Alabama, Arkansas, Maine,
North Carolina, Connecticut, Illinois, across this country we
are planning for that digital conversion. And we are committed
to using it to address issues and problems of concern across
this country.
I was thinking as we were discussing the problems of
violence, and I know you all have had many concerns about how
we might address some of the difficult situations we have been
having in this country. But you know, when the Littleton
situation came forward, we had already produced a documentary
for teachers to use with a teacher guide on conflict resolution
and how you handle violence. We fed it out especially for
teachers across the State. We had teacher guides for them to
have conversations, for parents to use. We were already
prepared, because that is the business we are in. We want to
use this powerful medium, media now, to do good things in our
States.
I guess a couple of key examples, we have along with our
colleagues in Mississippi, chosen a couple of the poorest
parishes, the poorest counties in Mississippi, where we are
trying to infuse technology into the curriculum. In Catahoula
Parish, and you know that has great difficulty, we have been
working with them to use web services, public television
programs, teacher training for the internet. We have now raised
the scores above the national average on the fourth grade Iowa
tests. Measurable results, I think something that is very
important for all of us to do.
The other thing I guess I as thinking is, I think we are
constantly in public broadcasting in an election cycle,
something all of you can appreciate. Our record is on the line,
we are examined and criticized, sometimes we are praised, and
we are constantly raising money.
I think that is what we are all about in public
broadcasting. But what we are trying to do is good, as I know
you all are. We are trying to make a difference in the lives of
the people of this country.
I always try and bring you one good story. Last time I
talked about a young man who had never been outside the State
who watched Where in the World is Carmen San Diego. The new
story I have for you is a young man came back to Louisiana in
December to do some duck hunting, something they are wont to
do, all of our husbands do. And I would say that this young
man, Paul Groves, flew into December just from the stage of the
Metropolitan Opera, where he was starting in The Magic Flute,
to do a little duck hunting and sing for his friends.
At this small gathering in Lake Charles, Louisiana, he
stood up and he said he was introduced to opera on public
broadcasting. He thanked me before everybody there and said,
that's where he was given his inspiration to want to do this.
If we can inspire people, if we can make a difference
because we have prepared to deal with violence and conflict,
then we are serving our trust for you.
But it is going to be exciting and difficult for us to get
over this next big hump for digital conversion. Because the
cost to convert for some stations is more than their annual
budget. So it is a big chunk for us to be doing.
But we are planning, appropriating and building. And with
all of your help, because you are the people who understand
this new technology, we have been trying to explain it to my
legislators, and I have sort of succeeded. But what we have to
do is share the complexity and the possibilities of this with
everyone. And I thank you so much for your support.
Mr. Tauzin. I can just imagine, Beth, your trying to
explain high technology to Hunt Downer. He's the speaker of the
house.
Ms. Courtney. But they appropriated.
Mr. Tauzin. A former roommate of mine, a real low-tech guy,
I must say. He's said worse about me, I'm sure.
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. David Liroff, Vice
President and Chief Technology Officer of WGBH Educational
Foundation in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Liroff.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LIROFF, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER, WGBH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
Mr. Liroff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
appearing in support of this bill. I would like particularly to
acknowledge Mr. Markey's long-time support of public
broadcasting and of WGBH. Your support has been instrumental in
helping us to serve both New England and the Nation with public
service media for many years.
Just as the Telecommunications Act of 1967 allowed the
fledgling Public Broadcasting Service to emerge in the analog
world, this bill will be a foundation for public service media
in the digital world. I would like to direct my comments
specifically to the provisions of the bill which authorize
digital funding to be administered by CPB and by PTFP.
The authorization for these programs, which are $415
million for CPB and $334 million for PTFP, totals roughly 45
percent of the estimated digital conversion cost for public
broadcasting. These figures are based on an exhaustive study
that was done by the PBS engineering committee in 1997, and it
included a survey both of commercial and public broadcasting
transition costs. It would cover the basic pass-through
transmission, allowing local stations to pass through a network
signal, master control equipment to incorporate local content,
production equipment, digital television operations and radio
conversion as well.
The money authorized for PTFP will be used for competitive
grants for basic pass-through transmission facilities. While
they are a good start, the amount of money in the PTFP
authorization simply will not be sufficient to cover 45 percent
of the pass-through costs of these facilities. Again, these
pass-through facilities will not allow local stations to
provide the local public services so critical to their
communities.
So the additional digital funds authorized to CPB are
critical to enable stations to both construct digital
facilities that will allow for local insertion of multiple
program streams and then make full use of this capacity by
providing multiple programming streams and enhanced television
services. At WGBH, for example, in addition to general audience
programming, we are planning to provide enhanced interactive
educational program services for children, educational and
instructional programming for use in area classrooms, which
will be complete with teacher guides and supplementary study
guides for students, formal and informal adult learning
opportunities and expanded coverage of the activities of the
State legislature and Massachusetts public affairs.
So this will provide not only for the pass-through
capability, but also the capability to develop, to produce and
to distribute local content as well.
I will be happy to address any questions that you may have
particularly on the digital facilities needed and their cost.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Liroff.
And finally, Mr. Jeffrey Chester, Executive Director of the
Center for Media Education in Washington, DC. Mr. Chester.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY A. CHESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
MEDIA EDUCATION
Mr. Chester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative
Markey, other members of the committee. We are delighted to be
here today.
We strongly support and praise your bill which would
reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ensure
that public television and public radio make the transition to
the digital age, and increase the funding for the digital
transition. We have been pleased to be able to work with the
committee over the last few years on a number of issues
critical to children's programming, including educational
programming for children's television, the V-chip guidelines
and more recently, the Children's On-Line Privacy Act, which
was passed last year.
We do hope that you will consider some of the many sage
proposals you had in the previous bill for public broadcasting,
particularly exploring the need for a trust fund and also to
ensure meaningful underwriter reform. There is no question that
commercialism, as Congressman Markey said this morning,
creeping commercialism, is having an impact on the quality
production of information on public radio and public
television. I would like to include in my testimony an article
recently co-authored by Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard, who
offers a very biting critique of the influence of commercialism
on the children's programming block.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection, that will be included.
Mr. Chester. I think it is something that everyone really
should read.
Today, I am afraid we were not able to get a VCR here, but
I could show you, I am also the father of a 6-year old, I want
to make it very clear, my child loves public broadcasting, it's
one of the few things I allow her to watch. We live with it
every day. I also appreciate the programming on public
television and public radio.
But increasingly, much of what we see in terms of
underwriting on public television programming for children is
more like advertising. Indeed, there are practices going on in
public television and in public radio that more are akin to
what we see selling commercial time, in the commercial
entertainment media. I don't know if any of you have young
children, and I wish I could show you the Chuck E. Cheese, I
can't act it out here because you would drag me out, but these
are underwriter spots that are clearly designed as ads. There
is a way to design these spots so they appeal to the adults.
But when your child, when the little Juicy Juice squiggles
around and all of a sudden your 5 year old turns to you when
you're in the grocery juice, I want Juicy Juice, I want Chuck
E. Cheese, clearly there is a better way to do this.
In addition, a lot of stations are also running, in
addition to the national underwriting spots, they are running
local spots. So increasingly the children's block is filled
with these underwriting promotions. There are all kinds of tie-
ins for licensed products. I don't know if any of you have
watched the pledge breaks where they say, oh, go get your
parent, and all of a sudden they hold up the Barney doll you
can get for $40. Well, the Barney show just ended, or the
Arthur doll, there is a lot of marketing going on that we think
is inappropriate to the children's block.
I think we also have to be concerned about commercialism as
we move into the digital era. It is not too soon for public
radio and public television to address to the Congress how they
are going to ensure that they are going to be non-commercial
with this interactive media system. Now, if you go on the
pbs.org web site, this is the PBS kids Arthur page, you go and
click on the underwriter logo, let's do Juicy Juice. If you go
to pbs.org/kids, and then you go to Arthur, which is a very
popular program on public broadcasting, you will see this. This
is the Arthur home page, you can play with Arthur's pals.
But you can also end up with, there are hot links on the
web page directly to the underwriters that appear more like
advertising to me. Let's say you click on Juicy Juice, and that
says you are now leaving PBS. This is supposed to be a
separator, but it is not effective. It does not really tell the
child that they are about to go into an ad. All of a sudden, if
the child hits Juicy Juice, they are told, well, gee, if you
drink about 50 gallons of juice, we'll send you some free
books. You earn points and as many points as you get, you can
get books. Then, and this is not clear, this could violate the
intention of the On-Line Privacy Act, all of a sudden there is
a form that pops up asking for all kinds of personal
information.
Then if you click on another underwriter, all of a sudden,
and you don't really even see any screen shots, it's really
just an ad for Frosted Alphabets and marshmallow, and it tells
the kid in kids language, this is really good to eat.
It is not too soon, as I said, for public broadcasting and
public radio to enact safeguards and policies to ensure that
not only do they restrict the kinds of commercialism going on
on the broadcast platform but also the new digital platforms
emerging.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jeffrey A. Chester follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey A. Chester, Executive Director, Center
for Media Education on behalf of Center for Media Education
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Rep. Markey, and other Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I am Jeffrey A.
Chester, Executive Director of the Center for Media Education, a
national nonprofit and nonpartisan organization. The Center's mission
is to ensure that the electronic media effectively serve the interests
of children, youth and their communities.
We have been privileged to work with this Subcommittee in the past,
on such issues as children's educational programming on commercial
broadcast television, effective Parental Guidelines for the V-Chip, and
protecting children's privacy on the Internet.
I am particularly pleased, Mr. Chairman, with your proposed
Reauthorization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Under
the bill, CPB will be given a substantial increase in general funding,
as well as special support to help ensure public broadcasting make an
effective transition to digital communications. Noncommercial
television and radio programming continues to play a critical role in
ensuring that the public receives quality and often in-depth news and
information. Most notably, public broadcasting has provided children
(as well as their parents, teachers, and caregivers) with thousands of
hours of well-made and effective educational programming. The mission
of CPB--and the local and national noncommercial programming it
supports--is as vital in the digital age as it has been over the last
thirty years.
As the Members of the Subcommittee well know, public broadcasting
is available to almost everyone in the U.S. with a television.
Regardless of income or geography, noncommercial TV and radio provides
its services to the public. Unlike cable, satellite television, or the
Internet, access to public broadcasting is free. As the system moves
into digital communications, we expect that it will expand its free
services to the public, providing Americans with bountiful, interactive
access to news, public affairs, education, arts and culture. But in
order to ensure CPB and the system fulfill their potential in the
digital age, it is important that they incorporate a number of new
policies.
That's why, Mr. Chairman, we hope that as the bill moves forward
you will consider incorporating many of the thoughtful reform proposals
you and Rep. Markey made jointly last year. One of the key areas
concerns underwriting. As has been noted, ``creeping commercialism''
has had a demonstrable impact on the public TV and radio system. Many
experts have observed that commercial considerations appear to have
influenced programming decisions, raising serious concerns about the
system's editorial integrity. An extraordinary, well-produced three-
part series on the program ``Marketplace'' recently examined the role
underwriting plays in public radio (http://www.marketplace.org/
features/underwriting/). A recent article in American Prospect (http://
epn.org/prospect/44/44linn.html) by Susan E. Linn and Alvin F.
Poussaint effectively documented how commercial considerations appear
to have contributed to a decline in the standards public television has
traditionally used when airing educational children's programming.
Additional background on the issue of commercialization can also be
found on the website of the newspaper Current (see, for example, http:/
/www.current.org/cm/cm1.html).
CME strongly urges you to include the underwriting reform proposal
you made last year. Specifically, under that proposal, underwriting
messages would be limited to simple aural and visual acknowledgements
of the sponsor of funding, and each underwriting message would be
limited to 10 seconds in duration. Sponsorship announcements on public
broadcasting, after all, were conceived originally as a public-
accountability mechanism, a means of disclosing to the public any
potential conflicts of interest involved in programming. It evolved
over time as an expression of philanthropic support and community
public service. Increasingly, however, many underwriting practices are
more akin to the dealmaking one witnesses in the commercial media. As a
taxpayer-supported entity, public broadcasting should not be competing
in the marketplace for advertising support.
We understand that public broadcasting, in its quest for additional
support, must respond both to the challenges of today's programming
marketplace as well as to Congressional directive. Clearly, the message
sent by Congress in the recent past was for public broadcasting to
become more entrepreneurially minded and to make better business
decisions. Ever-increasing programming costs and the additional burden
of adequately addressing the transition to digital broadcast have
undeniably placed an economic burden on the system. Such financial
pressures should not be allowed, however, to divert the system from its
core mission of providing a vital alternative to commercial
broadcasting.
An increase in federal support, as envisioned by your legislation,
would help relieve some of these financial pressures. But regardless of
increased federal support, we remain convinced that public broadcasting
must engage in underwriter reform. There are two areas in particular
where safeguards are needed to insulate program production from the
impact of commercial considerations: in news and public affairs, and in
children's educational programming. Effective safeguards become even
more important in the digital era, as public broadcasting begins to
explore a variety of new distribution platforms in what will surely be
a more competitive broadcast marketplace.
In the area of news and public affairs programming, the public must
be able to rely on public broadcasting for a range of editorial
functions, including unbiased, objective, and in-depth reporting, along
with commentary and analysis reflecting divergent points of view. Even
in this era of multiple sources of information, including new digital
services, there is still a scarcity of journalistically sound long-form
documentaries and investigative reports. In order to have a vibrant and
healthy democracy, the public needs free access to the quality news and
public affairs programming that only public broadcasting can provide.
The system also has a special role to ensure that independent
producers, and the diversity of interests they represent, find
meaningful support for the production and distribution of their work.
As for children's educational programming, we find some of the
trends within public television disturbing. As mentioned above, Harvard
professor and child psychiatrist Alvin F. Poussaint, in an article co-
written by Susan E. Linn, shares many of our concerns. (We have
included the article as an attachment to this testimony.) Public
broadcasting has earned its reputation with the public--and with
parents in particular--by creating educational programs based on
research designed both to educate and to entertain. Its role has been--
and should continue to be--one of providing children with quality
educational programming of a range and depth that is simply unavailable
on commercial television. PBS and the stations must work diligently to
create programming that serves the interests of children, not the needs
of marketers, toy companies, and production entities seeking to reap
profits from what are essentially public resources.
In response to criticism from CME and other children's health and
education groups, PBS crafted underwriter rules two years ago that were
designed to implement some safeguards in the area of underwriting and
children's programming. Unfortunately, many of the national
underwriting messages often look and sound more like commercials. They
usually run both before and after a program. Local stations also add
their own ``spots,'' which further contributes to the commercial
clutter. In our opinion, these underwriting messages should be designed
to be a straightforward acknowledgement of a company's support for the
program and for public broadcasting's mission. They should be designed
for adults, and not as a means of promoting products and brands to
children.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, children have become a ``hot'' target
market, and they are bombarded every day, in a variety of settings,
with all manner of advertising messages. Public broadcasting's
children's programming, on the other hand, was intended to serve the
educational and informational needs of a child, and it should remain
free of the interference and distraction of product pitches and
appeals. Unfortunately, as you can see from the videotape clip, there
are now times when something more than learning one's ABCs is being
sold to children.
We are pleased to note, however, that PBS appears to have been
working to ensure that several of the new national underwriting
announcements are more carefully crafted. But your proposal last year,
Mr. Chairman, for a ten-second limit, remains the most effective
safeguard in the area of underwriting.
As public broadcasting moves into digital communications, it is
important that CPB, the stations, and other public broadcasting
entities protect children from new forms of advertising, marketing, and
electronic data collection. For example, we already find on the PBS
Kids website ``hot'' links that will transport a child from cuddling an
e-version of Arthur and his friends, into the web pages of the
underwriters selling juice and cereal. Let me show you some examples
(http://www.scholastic.com/juice/index.htm, http://www.kraftfoods.com/
cgi-bin/product.cgi?
PRODUCT--ID=2). On Kraft Foods' Juicy-Juice site, there is a form in
which children are potentially encouraged to provide personal
information. PBS's Kids website has a ``bridge page'' that, in our
opinion, fails to act as an effective separator between program content
and the underwriters' advertising.
Thus we call on the public broadcasting system to craft new rules
for its websites and for whatever new interactive digital television
and radio programming it develops, that will protect children from
these new, more subtle and invasive forms of advertising. With the
ability of digital media to collect personal information and engage in
personalized ``one-to-one'' communications, and with other new forms of
advertising that effectively mix ``commerce'' and ``content,'' it is
especially important that public broadcasting enact policies that
safeguard the interests of children. CPB must also ensure that public
broadcasting entities protect the privacy of their audiences and engage
in exemplary data collection and promotion practices.
We also call on Congress to consider asking CPB to provide an
annual report to the American public concerning the system's
underwriting practices, including the business arrangements made by
individual production entities with underwriters, sponsors, and product
licensees.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will support the creation
of a effectively endowed trust fund for public broadcasting. Once a
meaningful system is put in place to support both production and
distribution, many concerns about underwriting and the impact of
commercialization will begin to fade. Congress can help ensure that
public broadcasting designs a system that will effectively fulfill its
democratic potential in the digital age. The emerging digital
technologies will allow public broadcasters to serve their communities
in many new ways, but this expanded capacity should not be seen as a
license for these broadcasters to engage in activities beyond their
original educational and informational mission.
As we enter the digital age, it is critical that we provide our
children and their children with a rich electronic legacy, one that is
designed both to inform our communities and to serve our democracy. A
thriving and vibrant system of noncommercial and public
telecommunications, I believe, should be a part of that legacy, too.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chester.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just
interrupt, and I apologize, before questions, to ask unanimous
consent to submit an opening statement. I want to in doing so
thank you and Mr. Markey for holding this hearing.
My colleague from New York, Mr. Lazio, and I had written a
letter asking for this hearing, and we are very appreciate that
you are holding it. I have been a long-time supporter of public
broadcasting, in those dark days of 1994. We are glad we were
all able to prevail. I thank you very much, and I would like to
ask unanimous consent to submit an opening statement.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair has already ordered unanimous consent
for that purpose, but the gentleman is also, his letter has
also been referenced in the chairman's opening statement.
Let me make unanimous consent that the letter, which is co-
signed by Mr. Lazio and the entire New York delegation, I
think, will be made a part of our record. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
May 28, 1999
The Honorable W.J. Tauzin
Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
2183 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Markey: As the leadership of both parties
work towards reauthorizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB), we urge you to include language which would permit CPB to make
grants to public television stations to develop, produce and distribute
digital television programs.
Congress has already expressed its commitment to supporting public
broadcasting's conversion to digital television with last year's
inclusion of an additional $15 million for CPB's digital transition and
$21 million for grants through the Public Telecommunications Facilities
Program (PTFP). The funds appropriated to CPB, however, are contingent
upon passage of reauthorization legislation by September 30, 1999.
Public broadcasting's conversion to digital television is mandated
by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In fact, public
stations across the country are facing a 2003 deadline, by which time
they must transmit on a new digital channel while continuing to operate
and transmit their existing analog signals. In order for public
broadcasters to meet this mandate, they face an investment in new
equipment estimated to be at least $1.7 billion. For many licensees
across the country, the costs of the digital transition exceed their
annual revenues. These stations face losing their licenses and going
off the air without public support.
In New York State alone, public broadcasting's conversion to
digital television will cost more than $65 million for our state's nine
public broadcasting stations. Fortunately, New York's Commissioner of
Education and the New York State Board of Regents have already
recommended state capital funding to leverage the federal investment.
This proposal, however, has been put on hold awaiting federal action.
We, therefore, urge the Commerce Committee to take up legislation
reauthorizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as soon as
possible. Such legislation should authorize CPB to fund development of
local digital programming in the critical years of transition by making
digital grants to public stations based on criteria that are
established in consultation with the stations. Furthermore, we urge the
Committee to take up legislation reauthorizing PTFP funding through FY
2004 at levels sufficient to assure that universal access to digital
broadcasting is achieved throughout New York State and across the
country.
Congress has a longstanding commitment to public broadcasting.
Providing federal funding to help public stations meet the mandated
deadline for conversion to digital transmission is an investment well
worth making, one that will ensure that our constituents will continue
to have the educational programs and services on which they have come
to depend.
Sincerely,
Eliot L. Engel, Member of Congress
Rick Lazio, Member of Congress
Anthony D. Weiner, Member of Congress
Peter T. King, Member of Congress
Michael P. Forbes, Member of Congress
Michael R. McNulty, Member of Congress
Gary L. Ackerman, Member of Congress
Edolphus Towns, Member of Congress
Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress
Maurice D. Hinchey, Member of Congress
Nita M. Lowey, Member of Congress
Benjamin A. Gillman, Member of Congress
Charles B. Rangel, Member of Congress
Louise M. Slaughter, Member of Congress
Major R. Owens, Member of Congress
Jerrold Nadler, Member of Congress
Nydia M. Velasquez, Member of Congress
Sherwood L. Boehlert, Member of Congress
John J. LaFalce, Member of Congress
and Joseph Crowley, Member of Congress
Mr. Tauzin. Let me also, in preference to our dialog now,
make an announcement for all the members. Tomorrow, the
chairman will have a press conference with Mr. Dingell to
announce the introduction of the Broad Band Data Relief Bill
referencing the deployment of full broad band services as
rapidly as possible for many of these types of media to enjoy.
We encourage members who have an interest to attend that press
conference at 1:30 in room 2322 in the Rayburn Building.
Also, Ms. Courtney, I want to announce particularly for
your purposes, the high-tech conference schedule for LSU on
October 11, in which we will invite public television and radio
to present some of the elements of high-tech educational
development at that conference. The demonstration you showed
today would be excellent for that conference.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes and members in
order.
Let me first point out indeed that what Mr. Markey has
described as creeping commercialism, Mr. Chester, and which you
have demonstrated for us in the digital space, continues to be
a strong concern of ours. But I want to put it all in
perspective. We can't, I don't think, tell public broadcasters
that we want them to be as non-commercial as we really want
them to be and at the same time, fail to provide public funding
for them to be as public as we want them to be.
And so the purpose of this bill is indeed to make our
public contribution, in the hopes that you can continue to make
progress to eliminate more and more of the commercialism we see
in analog public broadcasting, and certainly, to prevent it
from creeping into digital broadcasting of the public broadcast
systems.
We are particularly concerned, what you showed us about the
potential of violating the privacy provisions is of serious
concern. I would hope that you would take this concern
seriously and address those. We would hate to read 1 day that
public broadcasting is part and parcel of advertisers gathering
information from children inappropriately, when we have tried
to do our part here in Washington to prevent that from
happening without parental consent. So perhaps you might want
to look into that, the legitimate criticism we've seen this
morning.
Finally, I wanted to say in advance of any questions that
we are not giving up on our reform proposals. Again, please
continue to engage us on them. I don't know when legislatively
we can ever engage Congress in that effort. But at some point,
we have to.
I will say it again for the record, I think it is wrong for
us to continue to require of commercial stations that they do
more and more public things when we don't provide the financial
resources to public stations to do those public things. We have
it backwards. We are turning commercial stations into public
stations, and we are turning public stations into commercial
stations. I think we ought to get our heads back on straight
and do it right 1 day. I would again encourage your support for
my efforts and Mr. Markey's efforts to continue to focus on the
need for public broadcasting to be truly as public and as
generous in its public content as many of you have dedicated
yourselves to doing.
Mr. Burton, I want to turn to you first, sir. I was very
impressed with the passion of your statement. You have
performed and worked in both commercial roles, of course, as
Kunta Kinte, in the very popular, extraordinarily educational
and popular presentation on commercial television. And now you
have dedicated an awful lot of your life in the public
broadcast sector. You have focused, I know, on work in teaching
children to read, I know you have connected with the work Beth
Courtney has described in educating children.
Give us, if you will, a perspective of what it is to work
in both of these contexts, in the commercial world and in the
public world. You have done good work in both. What is the
difference? What is the value, if you will, of working in the
public broadcasting world?
Mr. Burton. That's a great question, Mr. Chairman. For me,
the issue is an issue of balance. I have been, as you pointed
out, very fortunate to have been involved in what I believe are
some of the best examples of how to use this medium properly,
in Roots, Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Reading Rainbow.
The difference between the first two that I mentioned being
entertainment vehicles, created and broadcast in a commercial
arena, and the third in the public television arena, the link
is the same. They contained that thread throughout them of the
desire to do more than just entertain the audience.
Mr. Tauzin. That is not always true in the commercial
world.
Mr. Burton. No, it's not always true.
Mr. Tauzin. How is it that you were able to work in the
commercial world with that same purpose in mind, when of course
we are seeing so much criticism today of movies and television,
because the desire to attract an audience with a dollar has
sort of, Mr. Markey called it a wasteland, it has sort of
deepened that wasteland for all of us. We see some of its ugly
effects.
Were you not drawn to that as well in the commercial world?
How is it that you were able to focus instead on projects that
could have done very well on public television? I mean, Roots
could have been a tremendous public television venture.
Mr. Burton. Could have been. I guess the real answer is
that I've been very fortunate. I also believe that I recognized
very early the power of this medium, and made a conscious
choice to align myself with programming that was of a very
specific nature, intent and energetic imprint. I believe this
conversation, this national conversation that we are currently
engaged in in terms of the impact of images in the media and
how they affect all of us that absorb them, that imbibe them,
is ultimately going to come down to an issue of personal
responsibility.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton. The Chair's
time has expired.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Coonrod, the CPB funds the Independent
Television Service and the Minority Consortia.
Mr. Coonrod. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. It is obviously the goal of public broadcasting
to have a rich diversity of programming, different voices that
oftentimes are not heard on commercial broadcasting.
Can you bring us up to speed a little bit on what you are
doing to encourage independent programming, the minority
programming, in the public broadcasting system?
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Markey, this is one of the top priorities
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But I would also
add that it is a priority for many in public broadcasting, not
just of the Corporation.
Specifically as concerns the Independent Television
Service, we are working with them to develop a multi-year
program. As of now, we have a year by year contract. What we
are trying to work out with them is a multi-year contract so
they can have a more predictable funding source.
Mr. Markey. What is the funding for the existing contract?
Mr. Coonrod. The program portion is about $6.8 million, I
believe, and the administrative portion is somewhere in the
neighborhood of $300,000.
Mr. Markey. Per year?
Mr. Coonrod. Per year. What we would like to do is be able
to provide a long term agreement so they could have a better
opportunity to plan their activities.
We are also working with them much more closely on the
development of digital media. Part of what we would want to
encourage is the opportunities for all sectors of the
independent world, minority producers as well, to have
opportunities to learn how to use the digital media and then to
produce in the digital media. The ITBS and the Minority
Consortia are groups that we are working with to try and
develop those opportunities.
Mr. Markey. What is the funding for the Minority program?
Mr. Coonrod. The funding is about $1 million per year per
consortium. There are five consortia.
Mr. Markey. So $5 million total for all of the Minority
Consortia?
Mr. Coonrod. For the five individual consortia. In
addition, there is a program fund at CPB at about, on an annual
basis, somewhere between 30 and 35 percent of those funds, are
directed toward that.
Mr. Markey. I appreciate that. I would just urge you to try
and find ways to increase that if possible. I think that is an
important role to play.
Mr. Coonrod. That is part of our intent. We are prepared to
make a major commitment with the increased funding we are going
to get in fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Markey. And if I could, Mr. Duggan, how are we going to
safeguard the non-commercial nature of public broadcasting?
First, in the over-the-air, and then in the new media. There
are limitations that Mr. Tauzin and I suggested in last year's
legislation that would limit it to 10 seconds. We know there
are stations around the country that are now up to 30 seconds,
turning them into commercials, in effect.
What kinds of safeguards are you looking at to ensure that
we just don't have the ultimate oxymoron, a commercial public
broadcasting station?
Mr. Duggan. Let me say a couple of things about that,
Congressman. First of all, I think diverse and generous sources
of funding from all sources that would keep public broadcasting
from being dependent on any one sources is the finest safeguard
of our independence from that over-dependence. I think the bill
that you are supporting and introducing today goes toward that.
I think your advocacy on the side of the non-commercial
angels is very effective. And I think that my experience on the
FCC sometimes taught me that the stick of advocacy in the
closet was often more effective than the actual legislative or
regulatory action itself. But I do think your advocacy on this
has been very effective.
Mr. Markey. It's a big stick. It's a very big stick.
Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir.
Let me say, however, somebody told me once of a sign in the
Paris zoo on a cage that said, this animal is so vicious that
when attacked, it defends itself. And I would like simply to
say that we are non-commercial broadcasters. What we have on
our air are underwriting messages and not commercials.
I would like to enter into the record if I may, for the
enlightenment of Mr. Chester and all who are interested, the 23
pages of small print of underwriting guidelines that are
designed as a bulwark against commercialism. I could just tick
off nine differences between our underwriting guidelines and
commercials.
We have no appeals to buy, no product comparisons, no
superlatives, no interruption of programs, no calls to action,
no price or value information, no endorsements of any sort, no
editorial involvement or influence by corporate underwriters,
no messages over 15 seconds in our national underwriting
guidelines. There are, as you point out, some local exceptions.
But all of those are claimed by the local users, and I think
there are a minority, to be within the FCC guidelines as to
content. The length may be 30 seconds, but they do not violate
these guidelines.
In our children's underwriting, we are even more emphatic.
We confine the content of any underwriting message to either an
educational message of a message of support for public
broadcasting and its mission. There are no commercial
promotions. There are no mascots or spokescharacters, and we
allow now product descriptions beyond just the showing of a
logo.
We are non-commercial broadcasters. We have chosen careers
to be non-commercial. So we are your advocates, Mr. Markey, and
we are in agreement with Mr. Chester about the content.
Mr. Markey. Well, let me interrupt right there, because you
remind me of another zoo story, which is the story of the
mother who has her child with her, and they're walking through
the zoo. The child looks at the lion and the lamb in the same
cage. The mother runs over to the zookeeper and says, that is
so remarkable, the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of the
lion and the lamb lying together. It's so beautiful.
And the zookeeper says, hey, lady, don't get too excited.
We've got to put a new lamb in every day. Behold the lamb, as
the commercial forces in our country focus in on you, asking
for 30 seconds, commercial, with flexibility as a condition of
your receiving the grants from these entities. It's that
condition that puts the lamb in jeopardy.
That's why we have to build safeguards around public
broadcasting, to ensure that they're not developed.
Mr. Chester, just 30 seconds, please.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Chester,
you may respond.
Mr. Chester. No, I would just say that I hope, Mr. Duggan,
you go back and you look at some of the underwriting spots, as
I mentioned, Chuck E. Cheese's, clearly designed to appeal to
kids. I hope PBS would provide to this committee some
independent research to find out whether these spots have been
designed for children or for adults.
Mr. Duggan. Well, we certainly would like to work with Mr.
Chester and with members of this subcommittee to ensure the
non-commercial nature of our service. Because we believe in
that.
Let me just say one word, Mr. Markey, about the internet
site. We have the most elaborate safeguards, we believe, of any
internet site, any popular internet site, on the internet, to
protect children. We buffer, and I think Mr. Chester blew
rather quickly past that buffer page. We buffer before there is
any transfer to an underwriting message. We have that warning
page that says you are leaving PBS, you are leaving our web
site.
We have 2 million children and parents every month coming
to that kids' site. We have never had one complaint, not one
complaint about our regard for the non-commercial nature of
that site and the buffering. Today's complaint from Mr.
Chester, which we are grateful for, is the first complaint we
have ever had. But we do want to work with him to ensure that
we do not do anything to put at risk the esteem and trust of
parents in our service.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does the gentleman from Massachusetts know the difference
between a Massachusetts zoo and a Cajun zoo?
Mr. Markey. What is the difference between a Massachusetts
zoo and a Cajun zoo?
Mr. Tauzin. In Massachusetts, under the animal's name there
is the Latin genus and species. In a Cajun zoo, under the
animal's name, there is a recipe.
The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I come from New Mexico, and in New Mexico, we
need 300 translators to cover the State of New Mexico. It is
very different. I wonder, for Boston, for WGBH, do you even
have a translator?
Mr. Liroff. Yes.
Mrs. Wilson. That surprises me somewhat. I know that these
issues are often very different, east versus west. If there is
one thing, Mr. Markey, that we definitely need more of in New
Mexico, it is the car guys. I really think we need more car
guys.
I have really two questions here. One is for Mr. Coonrod.
It has to do with the station grant criteria and reform of the
station grant criteria. I wondered if you and CPB anticipate
any modification of the station grant criteria, particularly
with respect to conversion to digital broadcasting by the 2003
deadline, and whether the difference between rural States and
urban States, and our heavy dependence on translators is going
to be taken into account in the change of the grant criteria.
Mr. Coonrod. We are very aware of the challenge that the
translators present. We are very aware of the fact that they
have not been included in the conversion tables that were set
up.
In terms of the grant criteria themselves, we have regular
consultations with the stations to reconsider the grant
criteria. We will have another regular consultation along those
lines in the coming months. That is that specifically, the
challenges faced by the rural stations is one of the issues we
will consider.
Whether we will then modify the criteria or not will depend
on the result of the consultation. But it is a subject we will
address.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you. I have another question that really
goes to the way television is used. I guess, Mr. Burton, I have
a particular interest in literacy. There is some irony that I
am on this committee, since from the age of 17 to the age of
31, I did not own a television. I do not have cable in my home
and I do not allow my children to watch television, other than
some public television programs.
It seems to me to be a paradox to use television to
encourage children to read books. I do not understand how that
works in the mind of a child. And particularly when the love of
books and the reading has more to do with the person whose lap
you are sitting on than with the story that is being projected.
How do you, who I think share this passion for storytelling
and for books, deal with that paradox?
Mr. Burton. It's a good question. The show Reading Rainbow
was created by a teacher, a woman who recognized and wanted to
address what teachers refer to as the summer loss phenomenon.
Simply put, a child who is at that early and nascent stage of
literacy, in that 3 month summer vacation, their reading and
comprehension skills invariably suffer.
Also knowing that it is no secret where our Nation's
children spend an inordinate amount of time, this recent report
released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center indicates that
our children in this country spend at least, on average, 3
hours a day sitting in front of a television. If you add time
at the computer, they are sitting on average in America, in
front of some screen or another, about 4 hours a day.
So our intention was to go where they are, sitting in front
of the tube, and then draw them back toward literature and the
written word.
Mrs. Wilson. But aren't you encouraging them to watch more
and more in order to persuade them to do it? I don't understand
that.
Mr. Burton. I just think it's a matter of being smart and
acknowledging the truth and going from there. Acknowledging and
accepting what is and then trying to create a semblance of
balance in the equation. If we can use the medium of television
to create a child who is passionate about literature, the more
the better.
Mr. Coonrod. If I may interrupt, it may be
counterintuitive, but I would support exactly what LeVar has
been saying. A recent study that PBS commissioned through the
University of Alabama shows precisely that, that families who
have gone through the exercises, the seminars that are provided
as part of the Ready To Learn program, the children of those
families actually watch television less and read more. They
were brought to those programs through the Ready To Learn
service on PBS. The data supports those conclusions.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Duggan. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to what Mr.
Coonrod said, on the adult side, also, we find that PBS
watching encourages people to read. Many of our documentaries,
Ken Burns, for example, the Civil War, made Shelby Foote's
histories of the Civil War bestsellers again, in paperback and
hard cover. When we have companion books, we find that they
rise to the best seller list, because of the power of this
medium.
We are television that loves reading and encourages people
to read. The way we do television is in a rational, linear,
sequential, chronological way that is not unlike reading. We do
not have the kind of fast cutting and fragmentary editing that
you see elsewhere. We have a coherent way of presenting
information, storytelling, as Mr. Burton said.
We do find in our research, both on the children's side and
the adult side, that library use, visits to bookstores, books
going onto the bestseller list, are a consequence of the kinds
of programs that we have.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentlelady's time has expired, but she
stirred you up real good, and I would like to give you all a
chance to respond.
Mr. Chester. I would like to answer that, not only because
we are an organization that works with children and educational
media, but because I am also the parent of a 6-year old. One of
the things that is so important about public broadcasting and
its children's programming is that it is based on research and
encourages young children to be literate. If you have ever
watched Sesame Street, for example, it is very clear. I see the
benefits with my own daughter now, who has just completed
kindergarten and is now reading on her own and very proud of
it. Clearly, she learned a great deal about the ABCs and about
words and concepts from the public broadcasting educational
programs.
So it has a role to play. Clearly, then the parent has to
play a very key role. But it is a very powerful aid. It is
better that they watch this kind of programming, because
oftentimes television, unfortunately, is a babysitter, than if
they watch something that is going to teach them something
else.
So public broadcasting programming can work, which is why
we have to retain its special mission.
Ms. Courtney. You see, many of us, I began as a teacher,
that's my background as well. The whole Ready To Learn project
that we are doing, I hope that we end up putting more money out
into the communities. Because we go out with day care providers
and train them, we give out first books, we give them books, we
train them how to have that television experience with some of
the children's programs be interactive. And we actually say,
turn off the television. It is an interesting thing that we are
encouraging you, in many instances, not to watch as much
television.
But we have to do a lot of outreach into the community. And
see some of these children, of course, do not have that lap to
sit in. That's why we are trying to help those.
But I find my friends obviously use this as well with their
children and grandchildren. So as somebody indicated, that's
where the children are. We are trying to make a difference in
their lives. But we actually have that big outreach component
that makes a difference.
One other thing we try and do is we try to bring literature
to adults. We just did a documentary on Kate Chopin, who is in
Louisiana, her fine stories and books. We did this, and then
we're encoding it with enhanced digital material to use for
English teachers.
So every time we do a project, we think, how might this
help in an educational manner. But it does seem odd, we are
encouraging people sometimes to turn off the television. But we
do that.
Mr. Klose. If I may, Mr. Chairman, to the member from New
Mexico, I should say that National Public Radio has become a
major source of turning people to literature. The American
Association of Publishers recently acknowledged that with a
special award to NPR for its bringing people to literary
values. Our view is that reading is very important in
childhood, but it does not end in childhood. The oral
traditions that radio has made so strong and that NPR's kind of
radio has made so strong has brought access to literature in
new ways. We do literary reviews and discussions about
contemporary books, new books and what authors' views are, and
do that with an intensity that brings something very special to
our programming.
We have found that member stations across the country value
this, and that there are many linkages at the level where
stations are building for themselves the kind of institutional
presence in the community which is so important to the future
of our stations.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you once
again to all the panelists for answering a lot of my questions.
Let me just ask Mr. Duggan, though, I know that you
touched, in your written testimony, on this issue. I was hoping
you could expand on what your plans are for making use of
digital program, especially on how the programming would be
directed toward children. What do you see as the potential for
this programming, and maybe give us a sneak preview of what you
think you will be offering relative to a more interactive
learning experience.
Mr. Duggan. Let me mention three uses that we have in mind
for the digital media and then come back to the special mission
that we have to children, Ms. Eshoo. And I appreciate the
question.
We see high definition television as a marvelous way of
intensifying the educational and cultural mission of public
television. Imagine opera, imagine ballet accessible to every
American, every citizen in his or her home, with the special CD
quality sound, the intense visual experience of HDTV. Imagine
our nature programming intensified.
We think it is made to order for our mission. We do believe
that particularly in our signature prime time programming, much
of it produced by WGBH and WNET, our New York flagship station,
we believe that high definition television is a marvelous way
of heightening and intensifying the experience, and
intensifying our mission.
During the day, we plan to do what we call digital
multicasting. The wonderful increase in capacity that is
afforded by digital compression makes it possible for us to
deliver at least four channels in the space that normally was
taken up by one. We can deliver the main national PBS feed on
one of those channels. And using a remote control, the viewer
can switch to PBS Kids, a full time educational kids channel,
which we are introducing in September, first on DBS then in
digital multicasting for our member stations.
Imagine also a news and public affairs special channel in
multicasting that will enable civil discourse and serious
address to issues. Many of our commercial media are driven by
ratings competition to desert serious discourse about serious
issues. But we believe that we can find a niche and perhaps
have a full time public affairs channel that will go beneath
the surface.
A lifelong learning channel that would be both
instructional and life enhancing for our viewers that would
have not only more academic programming, that would enable
people to continue their education, but informal learning, the
kind of pioneering that we have done with how-to. So we believe
that multicasting during the day is a wonderful opportunity for
us, and we plan to exploit this technology that way.
The third way is what you saw, the packaged digital feed
that can be downloaded along with the program, and that can
deepen the experience of the viewer who wants to learn more.
Ms. Eshoo. What are the timeframes around this one? I can
hardly wait.
Mr. Duggan. We are already doing this. If you buy a digital
set at your local California or Washington equipment store,
WETA, one of our flagship pioneers here in Washington, is
already broadcasting a schedule in digital, both multicasting
and HDTV. We are already putting up a full time HDTV feed with
at least one new HDTV program made available each month.
Zoboomafoo, one of our children's programs, is already
being presented with the enhanced packaging. So this is not a
technology of the future for us. It is here, it is now. And we
are very enthusiastic about it.
Ms. Eshoo. That's marvelous. I think that is wonderful news
for the committee. I appreciate your description.
Let me just say to Mr. Burton, it isn't very often, we have
in this hearing room the opportunity to listen to many of the
geniuses of America. But I have to tell you that with your
testimony and how you put your thoughts together today, that
you really feed the soul of America. I thank you for that. We
all pay tribute to you for it.
I think for the part of America that we are struggling to
comprehend, to understand, we keep saying, why, why are these
things happening, we really have the answer. Because if we
respond to the greatness of what is in the human spirit, that
will be healing and that can touch an awful lot of people. The
medium that you are all here, that you work in, that you have
support from the Congress, thank goodness, and certainly the
American people, that we can address and really resolve a lot
of the things that we don't like about America and want to make
better. So thank you to you, and your artistry and to all of
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, is recognized.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I was
not here earlier, I was chairing a subcommittee on veterans
health. I appreciate the opportunity that the committee is
still here and that I could help in some small way with two
questions I have. And also to welcome my friend, Mr. Coonrod,
who I've had the opportunity to have dinner with and to see the
MacArthur tapes and say what a spectacular job public
broadcasting has done with that American experience.
I think this goes in line with my colleague from
California, what she has said, that these kinds and types of
programming are going to not only the history of America, but
also presenting information which is part and parcel of our
soul, of the American experience.
I have two questions, Mr. Chairman. One is dealing with how
the estimate of $1.7 billion as developed. I guess earlier
testimony indicates that the public broadcasting industry
estimates the total cost of conversion to digital to be about
$1.7 billion. This I guess would be for Mr. Coonrod. How and
when was that number derived, and what exactly does it include
in its total?
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Stearns, I can give you a broad answer.
But there is also a member of the panel who could give you a
more specific answer. But let me give you the broad answer
first.
We put together a group called the digital steering
committee, which included representatives from public radio and
public television. We did a thorough review of what would be
required to provide digital television. And by that we mean not
just the pass-through capability to deliver a public television
signal, but also the ability for local stations to provide the
enhanced services that you have just been hearing about, high
definition but also enhanced services, enhanced television and
the multicasting capability.
So the surveys, which were done largely by engineers and
other technical people, were based on a services model that
would enable public television stations to provide the broad
range of public television services, educational services,
especially. Those services were then costed out, and that is
the result of how the specific numbers were arrived at.
Mr. Liroff, who is at the other end of the panel, is expert
in the details of those specific numbers. But they were worked
out through this process with stations around the country.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Liroff, you are the Vice President and
Chief Technology Officer, WGBH Educational Foundation.
Mr. Liroff. Correct, sir.
Mr. Stearns. So you are better prepared to give some of the
details?
Mr. Liroff. We can drill down at the various layers. At the
first layer, there are five components in that $1.7 billion.
The first is for basic transmission, which would allow each of
the current stations to put a digital television transmitter on
the air and begin broadcasting a digital signal. The second
layer is master control capability for each of the stations, so
they can then integrate local content and local services in
with a signal coming through from the network.
The third is for production equipment, so they can produce
local programming with digital equipment, so they can continue
their community and local programming services. The fourth is
for DTV operations. The current expectation is that the analog
and the digital stations together will be on the air well past
2006, probably for the next 10 years. Because the analog
stations can't go off the air until 85 percent of the homes in
any given market are capable of receiving and displaying the
digital signal.
So these stations, as will commercial stations, will then
have the obligation to be operating two transmitters at every
local site rather than the one analog station that they now
operate.
The last component is for radio's conversion to digital,
which we believe is imminent within the next year or two. It is
certainly happening internationally and the U.S. system is very
close to a resolution of how to accommodate digital radio
broadcasting within the current band.
Mr. Stearns. How did you come up with the 85 percent? What
was that formula?
Mr. Liroff. That's the U.S. Congress, that was stipulated.
Mr. Stearns. Okay, that's ours. All right.
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Stearns, those figures were developed
originally in 1998 and have been updated since then. So those
figures are current.
Mr. Stearns. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Klose. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stearns, I'd like to add if I
could, as Mr. Liroff mentioned, at present there is no radio
deadline to go to digital transmission. There has not been yet
a full concurrence as to what that format ought to be, how that
transmission format ought to be.
However, we do know some costs going forward right now.
They are identified inside this larger figure. We have
identified about an $11 million cost going forward to shift
antennas. When current antennas get digitized, it's going to
cause interference to some of our broadcast antennas, and we
will probably have to find new antennas. We have identified
that number at about $11 million.
In addition, the additional funding or continued funding or
authorization of funding for PTFP is very important to our
members, because they are using the PTFP money to move
internally from analog production to digitized production
basis, which will further enhance their ability to move to
digital transmission when that comes forward.
So both these factors are in play there. And continued
authorization for PTFP is very important to our member
stations.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Ms. Courtney wanted to respond.
Mr. Stearns. Oh, I'm sorry. Anybody on the panel, I think
the chairman would allow me forbearance to answer this question
in more detail.
Ms. Courtney. Mr. Stearns, I was looking at Florida's
numbers, and what they were looking at is a cost of $101
million to totally do that transition for both just
transmission and production. But to just stay on the air, $60
million is going to be the cost. So you can see, it sort of
breaks out, $60 million just to stay on the air and convert
their transmitters and antennas and towers. Of that, they have
now gotten $5 million from the State with a commitment for
another $15 million. So they're looking at sort of a third, a
third and a third in terms of support. Maybe Federal a third,
private fund raising a third, and State money a third.
I know it's difficult to get a handle on this. Because in
every community, it is slightly different. I thought everybody
had 2,000 foot towers, but we're in a swamp, so I have tall
towers, and my towers are more expensive. Once we go and change
things out, and that's true in Florida as well, we have to
strengthen them, because they're not up to the old code to put
new antennas on them. So that is a tremendous expense, just to
go and strengthen those towers, put the antennas up and in some
places, the might be on a mountain. So it varies.
We are doing detailed examination of each site in public
broadcasting across this country. The first call is to make
sure, as you are saying out west, a lot of my colleagues in
State networks, that we first have universal service, that we
don't lose the licenses, that people can actually receive the
service. After that, then you get production equipment. I am
not even worrying about production equipment until I get my
transmitters and towers up.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Wilson. Would the chairman yield for a question?
Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
Mrs. Wilson. Was it the English that pushed you out of that
cold country and down into that swamp? Is that it? And this is
better?
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, much better. The truth of the matter is, I
guess Okeefenokee has a lot in common with Louisiana swamps.
But our problem is that we build our towers 2000 feet, but they
sink.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just an observation, quickly. I think it is enormously
important when it comes to questions like literacy to
understand that television is simply a vehicle, and that it is
one of the most effective vehicles for dealing with the
changing target that literacy in America has become. I just
want to take a moment to thank all of you for the enormous,
demonstrable effort to use public broadcasting not simply in
those programs that we would identify as educational, but
rather, across the spectrum of programs, to elevate the
literacy of the Nation.
For the last decade, you all have been walking a terrible
tightrope in terms of the solicitation of what Mr. Burton
refers to as the 5 million Americans who are the real
contributors. The messages have had to change. It's been a
difficult message. Now that the target has been taken off, or
at least we hope that target has been taken off your backs,
that dilemma of trying to argue first that, although there is
public funding for public television, the majority of the funds
come from our listeners, to the period of time in which we
really, it was difficult for me to go on the air and to argue
for contributions. Not that I didn't do it, but because the
argument was so difficult.
As we emerge into this new era, can you comment about how
the new formula will affect your ability to sustain the
contribution, the constituency that you have, and expand it
more broadly across your listenership?
Mr. Duggan. Mr. Sawyer, I would say to start out that we
believe that if we are providing good service to the American
people, that if our mission is visibly different, and if we are
fulfilling our educational and cultural mission in a way that
inspires trust and support, that the support we need, both
public and private, will be there. We are really quite
optimistic about that support.
We care a great deal about every source of support. And
while we are proudly non-commercial, we value those corporate
citizens who step up and are corporate supporters. They are not
allowed to do commercial messages. So one might say they could
get more commercial value by placing their funds somewhere
else. But they are doing this as a philanthropic contribution
to our mission. We value those corporate supporters.
But as I said to Mr. Markey, we believe that all the five
principal sources, or what we call viewers like you, our
individual subscribers, corporations, foundations, State and
local governments, including publicly supported universities,
and the Federal Government, a strong and vibrant and generous
level of support from all five of those is the best guarantee
of our independence and our ability to fulfill our mission
without veering in any direction toward one of those.
Mr. Coonrod. There is a specific way in which increased
Federal appropriations do help stations leverage their
additional funds locally. Most of the money that we provide to
stations for the community service grant is on an incentive
basis, based on the amount of non-Federal financial support
they can reach in their community. So when the Federal
appropriation is increasing, it adds to the incentive that
stations have to raise more money in their community, because
it gets matched, not one for one, but it gets matched
proportionally by increased funds through CPB.
So your support not only is support directly to the
stations, but it also helps them raise additional money in
their communities.
Mr. Sawyer. It seems to me that is a great opportunity
again to alter the message and to begin to have the kind of
positive reinforcement that I think all of us want to see.
Mr. Klose. Mr. Sawyer, at NPR, I would support exactly what
Ervin and Bob Coonrod have said here. Let me add, we are very
sensitive to listener sensitivity on this issue. We know there
is dialog within our membership organization and also broadly
across public broadcasting in general about listener
sensitivity to these issues. We will be studying and watching
this very, very closely as we go forward.
We are also looking to substantially build alternative
sources of revenue that would help stabilize our financial
issues. We just received, for example, from the MacArthur
Foundation, the largest single donation or commitment that was
ever made to a public broadcasting organization, $4 million,
because it wants to help us build and endowment that would help
us stabilize our revenue sources.
Mr. Brugger. Also, Mr. Sawyer, the stations are working
very hard now to look at collaborations with institutional
organizations, whether it is universities, community groups, to
get some of them to help not only with the programming, but
with the funding of the programming as we build new programming
streams. Matter of fact, there is a project in Connecticut
called Mapping the Assets, where they are going around to all
of the non-profit governmental, and even some of the business
community, to say what are the needs that public media can
meet. How can we join partnership with you, a true partnership
where you are a contributing member, not only in terms of
dollars, but in decisionmaking about how we program for the
public media in the future using this great technology that we
are going to have.
Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that my light ever
was turned on, but that does not make any difference.
Mr. Tauzin. I apologize, but if you want to ask some more
questions, please proceed.
Mr. Sawyer. I just wanted to make an observation. About a
year and a half ago, one of the public broadcasters in my area
called up, very distressed because of a pirate radio station.
It came at a particularly awkward time. I said, did you have
some special program that you were doing? He said, no, it's our
fund drive. So we got them off the air as quickly as we
possibly could, simply because it meant so much for the rest of
the year's programming.
Mr. Tauzin. If the gentleman would yield, one of the
reasons this gentleman has been so concerned about the
proposals at the FCC, the licensees, thousands of
microstations, without ever consulting with the public
broadcast community, whose base might be terribly eroded by the
addition of all these microstations, I would hope the gentleman
pays some real attention to that concern.
Mr. Sawyer. We have discussed that, as you know. I
appreciate the chairman's position on that.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to end my question with Mr. Chester, but I am
going to go to Mr. Duggan and Mr. Burton to get there.
Mr. Duggan, I would rather have my children, who are four
and 6 years old, watching Juicy Juice at the end of the show,
and may need to get to a link for that advertisement, versus
halfway in a show getting an ad for Beast Wars action toys. I
guess the question I have is, is there a way of screening the
people who request to be the underwriters, based upon actually
what they are trying to do? It is still an advertisement, I'm
not going to parse a word, it is still an advertisement when
you watch Barney and Huggies comes up as a sponsor. I'm not
used to being really fine in the vocabulary legally.
Is there a way of screening appropriate types of
sponsorship for shows, so that under the public broadcasting,
Beast War action toys may not see its way to underwriting a
show?
Mr. Duggan. I don't believe we have any action figures or
highly commercial exploitative products of that sort as
underwriters. In the case where a product is mentioned in
underwriting, as I said earlier, Mr. Shimkus, we require that
no promotional message be delivered, that there be an
educational message. For instance, I think there is a Kellogg's
underwriting message that says, Kellogg's encourages you to
read books. It is not a product promotion.
When a product is an underwriter, we require either that
education message or a message suggesting the value of the
mission of public television. So we would vigorously assert
that though there may be corporate good citizens who support
our programs, including our children's programs, this is so
radically different from what we see in real commercials. But
even to use the term commercialism is misleading, unless you
acknowledge those tremendous differences.
But we take very seriously your concerns. I would simply
say, as Ms. Courtney comes from a background as a teacher, most
of us have chosen careers in non-commercial, public service
television. We care deeply about the trust of parents, the
trust of teachers, and the credibility of what we do. We would
not want to do anything that would undermine that trust.
So we take very seriously your concern, and we will try to
live up to the concern that you express.
Mr. Shimkus. And I am not sure what the concern is, I am
really kind of applauding, because I am observer of both,
public broadcasting and commercial entities. I too have also
been in public service my entire life in different shapes, as a
teacher.
Mr. Duggan. You have also been the subject of a PBS
documentary, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Not as highly acclaimed as Mr. Burton.
Mr. Duggan. I would not let the moment go past without
thanking you for your role in that.
Mr. Shimkus. I'm not going there.
But I do want to say, I guess a lot of us who were raised
in the Star Trek era, if we are trekkies, we just appreciate
your being here and having the chance to talk. You mentioned
the Motorola phone, and the flip phone. The problem with, when
you open yourself to public scrutiny in this world, people
start learning more and more about yourself. I am a trekkie who
really got my first inclination of further education through
Starfleet Academy versus the old Star Trek. I attended West
Point, and Mrs. Wilson, who just left, is an Air Force Academy
graduate.
I do give that some of the credit for my desire based upon
a higher education, leadership skills, how to treat people, all
of those aspects. And I applaud you, you have invested yourself
into this issue. And I applaud that. That is what we define as
leadership by example.
I am going to throw out another challenge, and then it will
come back to Mr. Chester's argument. We are talking about a
really specific period of time here in which funds are needed
to get to the new era of broadcast. But the fundamental issue
of funding for PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
there are still some concerns there.
I think a lot of folks in your profession benefit greatly.
I would encourage you to use not just leadership by example,
but help motivate some of your colleagues, not just to think
they have done their role based upon one appearance as a guest
star on Sesame Street, but that they give back in a forum that
is a positive benefit to our society. Because there are many of
us here on the Hill who are just angry, insulted, confused and
perplexed, based upon what we have seen over the public airways
for corporate benefit. I know everybody is like us, probably
even more, are trying to grab for pieces of your time. But if I
could just give you any encouragement and any help that we can
give.
Because the question follows up now to Mr. Chester and his
final part of his statement, and I need to quote it, he
mentions, finally, Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will support
the creation of an effectively endowed trust fund for public
broadcasting. I would ask you, what do you mean, how do we get
there, that's my charge also to Mr. Burton, to help effectively
endow a trust fund. This addresses the issue post-digital era.
And I hope that the chairman will allow me to move in that
direction, because I am looking at the next generation, than
just the current problem.
Mr. Tauzin. You want to take us to places we've never been?
Mr. Shimkus. Well, we've tried to get there before, and we
have not made it yet.
Mr. Chester. Certainly, going back to the children's area,
there is clearly a tremendous difference between what we see on
commercial television and what we see on public broadcasting.
Commercial television, particularly for children, has helped
create a toxic culture, which is why this committee has worked
so diligently on issues like the V-chip and the parental
guidelines. It is because we value that programming so much
that want to ensure that in this highly competitive and
expensive world of television that we don't take away public
broadcasting from its original educational mission, and ensure
that these programs are really non-commercial.
Just in response to Mr. Duggan, the brands are mentioned,
it's Juicy Juice. The brands are mentioned, and they are highly
attractive to children. In fact, one other thing is, we have a
good article which I did not include with the testimony, but
hope you read, co-authored by Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard,
who criticizes what has been going on with public broadcasting.
One of the questions he has is about the deals that individual
production companies, copyright holders, are having with
underwriters.
Mr. Shimkus. I don't mean to cut you off. I think we
understand that problem. I guess the question is, how do we
develop the trust fund now to deal with, and I apologize, but I
will also say that I would rather have them look at Juicy Juice
versus Beast Wars. So I'm not trying to get in the middle of
that.
Mr. Chester. But it is a question of a slippery slope. I
think there is an opportunity for a trust fund. Clearly, it
would take the leadership of this committee and the chairman.
But certainly, commercial broadcasters have been able to
benefit tremendously from the spectrum allocation they were
given in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield on that point? The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 made it very clear that if
commercial broadcasters used the new 6 mHz of spectrum for
purposes other than broadcasting, which they may, they may want
to get into some other commercial ventures with it, broad band
data stream ventures, in competition with others in our society
who have paid for the spectrum to do those things, the Act says
that the FCC is obliged to require contribution from the
commercial broadcaster equivalent to what would have been
obtained in an auction of that spectrum for that commercial
purpose.
Now, that's general language. What we have not done is said
what happens to those moneys. I would suggest to the gentleman,
and I have suggested to the entire committee, one thing we
ought to consider is a dedication of those funds, when they are
identified and when they arrive, that those funds properly
ought to go into the creation of a trust fund for public
broadcasting, so that public broadcasting can rely less on the
attributions and commercialization of its programming and more
on some sort of public funding.
But I thank the gentleman for his interest here, and we
will continue to dialog with him.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I guess the important
thing too is, as we now in our business, when people are, and
you all do it through your pledge drives, when people are
empowered to invest, no matter how small an amount, they are
better advertisers of the industry, they are better promoters.
They are our best supporters, those who have given even as
little as a dollar to our campaign, because they are now
vested.
I want to make sure that there is a system formed that we
can continue to invest the public in this and invest, obviously
the industries are benefiting. But I also want the major
recipients, because of their talent, Mr. Burton, to also
invest. I am going to keep encouraging you. But I want them to
be part of this trust fund look that we can encourage big
dollars, small dollars, government dollars and how we can make
this so. Again, we are not here all the time looking for a
handout but we have a system and a revenue stream that is safe,
sound and secure.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
I want to recognize my friend from California, Mr. Rogan,
if you have any questions, sir.
Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this
hearing. I also want to thank all of the panelists for their
testimony. I did not have the privilege, obviously, to hear all
of the testimony, as a result of competing and conflicting
hearings and other obligations. I have had the opportunity to
read all of the testimony. I think the chairman has gone out of
his way, during my time in Congress, to try to ensure that
hearings such as this educate members such as me as to the
importance of these issues.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Rogan.
Let me wrap up by doing something that one of the members
suggested we had not done today. Let me be the devil's advocate
for a second. There are no Klingons on the panel. But if there
were a good Klingon on the panel, he would ask the following
question. With the advent of 500 channel television, beamed
down to us from satellites, and with the advent of incredibly
new cable programming like the Learning Channel, History
Channel, Discovery Channel, Lifetime, Animal Planet, USA
Network, many other channels now that are doing much of what we
would consider better television, teaching us the history of
our life, the life of the planet, its environmental resources,
its teaching us in many cases, presenting cultural programming
and presenting historical perspectives and educating us, as the
Learning Channel constantly does on so many issues.
With 1700 radio broadcasters now on the internet,
broadcasting incredible new and very specific audio streams,
not just music, but incredible new avenues to teach us and to
broaden our experience, with the capacity of broad band
arriving soon, which will similarly introduce thousands of
television channel broadcasters to the internet, and the
merging of the computers and the television, so that the
television itself will become the modem by which internet broad
band streams deliver video programming and audio programming to
us in integrated packages. With the capacity of your stations
themselves to multiplex, so that one station can powerfully do
the work that four stations previously perhaps did in a given
community, here's a Klingon question. What the heck do we need
all of the public broadcasting for? What is so necessary about
it?
Mr. Chester. Mr. Chairman, this is an area that we at the
Center for Media Education study, the future of a digital
marketplace, not only the children's marketplace. We are taking
a very, very good look at it, including our broad band policy.
I can say to you that we will need public broadcasting more
than ever in this emerging world. Because even though there
will be more diverse and perhaps countless sources of
information out there, they will be highly commercial. And the
model for the new media system really merges advertising,
marketing, data collection and the content.
So if you want to have a space where there can be just this
pure civic discourse, obviously C-SPAN plays a role that is
very unique. And you hopefully will see more C-SPANs.
But if you want to have those spaces where it is really
about engaging in citizenship and in the healthy development of
children----
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Chester, cable says it is doing that. Cable
tells us that this is local programming, in fact, the law
requires them and they must carry local coverage, as public
access channels.
Mr. Chester. Those are also non-commercial.
Mr. Tauzin. There is the Learning Channel, History Channel,
which may be commercial cable channels, but you don't see a lot
of commercials on them. They are basically doing some pretty
good stuff. Come on.
Mr. Chester. I guess we differ. What you will see on those
channels, even though there are good things, I've heard a joke
that Hitler should have kept the TV rights, because it's
endless reporting on World War II. You won't have the
diversity, you won't have the insight. Only public
broadcasting, disconnected from the commercial forces that will
be really shaping this new media, does that.
Mr. Tauzin. Good point. Somebody else try it.
Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir. I'd like to give six reasons.
Mr. Tauzin. Summarize, please.
Mr. Duggan. Very quickly. We are non-profit and
educational, and they are not. None of the ones that you
mentioned can make that claim.
What that means is our adult learning service broadcasts to
two-thirds of the college and university campuses in America,
distance learning telecourses. No for-profit cable channel or
other television service does that. We are non-profit and
educational, they are not.
We reach every home. They do not. Cable reaches between 60
and 70 percent of the country, and you have to pay $300 to $600
to get it. It is wonderful. They do lots of good things. We
deliver to the retired school teacher in Louisiana who loves
opera, we go free to all of those homes.
The third point, I just touched on it, but we are free and
they are not. And that is very important, Mr. Markey touched on
it earlier. We have unparalleled creativity and innovative
power and quality, and with no disrespect to them, they do not.
We invent genres like educational programming for children, and
they copy them. We invent genres like the historical
documentary, and they copy them for commercial purposes. We are
the wellspring of creativity.
Fifth, we define our audience as citizens, they define
their audience as consumers. There is a tremendous difference
there, Mr. Chairman. Finally, we are local and grassroots,
owned at the local level, they are global combines, owned by
remote people, delivered bloodlessly from the sky. We exist in
the bayous of Louisiana and the local communities. We are owned
and governed locally. And we proudly underscore all of those
differences.
Mr. Tauzin. But you missed one of the things I threw at
you, now. It is not an easy ball to bat back. You are now going
to multiplex. Why do we need so many of you?
Mr. Duggan. Because we have so much content and not enough
shelf space. We have so many wonderful things that we want to
do for the American people. Kids' programming, more of it over
more time. How-to and educational lifelong learning, more of
it, instructional public affairs. We are like a library with so
many books and not enough shelves to put them on. We have so
many great things we want to do for the American people, we
need those extra channels.
Mr. Tauzin. Ms. Courtney?
Ms. Courtney. I don't know, I'm exhausted.
As Ervin indicates, there is so much opportunity to do so
much. But I have to tell you, I am Chairman of the Board of
America's Public Television Stations. We in our local
communities are doing things directly in communities that will
not be done by a remote site out of some remote cable head end.
And quite clearly, no one is going to be doing the documentary
that we are doing this year on the expulsion of the Acadians
from Nova Scotia.
Mr. Tauzin. I think we should end the hearing right here.
Ms. Courtney. But to very specifically say that as we look
into your community and we say, what are your particular needs,
clearly in Louisiana we have some very specific needs that are
unique to our community, and we are addressing them. This is
true in Florida, in each State. And those local stations.
Mr. Tauzin. I think we all need to focus on something,
though, and really think about this. When broad band does in
fact allow for the distribution of hundreds, perhaps thousands,
of television broadcast channels on the internet, and the
internet is intricately connected to the television set, I was
at the cable convention in Chicago and saw technology that is
doing that today in buckets. Not just web TV, but other
technology that is beginning to be introduced.
When all that happens, the question is, what is going to be
the value of a local television commercial station in that kind
of a marketplace, if it does not become extraordinarily local?
So my guess is that the local television stations are going to
become much more competitive for covering local events and
being more local. The question will rise again, what is the
value of a public television station in that world?
Ms. Courtney. Clearly they are advertiser driven. You know,
you and I, my husband was in commercial television for some 20
years.
Ms. Tauzin. I want you all to focus on that, what a
volatile household. She has a commercial anchor living with
her.
Ms. Courtney. And the interesting thing is, truly when you
begin with what your mission is, and Ervin said that so well, I
think of us as being part of a citizen democracy where we are
mission driven. Frankly, the shareholders then are the American
public that we have to report back to, not the investors. It is
a big difference. I have done commercial television, and I have
done most of my life public television. There just is a
difference.
Mr. Tauzin. By the way, LeVar, Bob Courtney does look like
a Klingon. I want to put that on the record.
Mr. Klose. Mr. Chairman, we are a little bit out numbered
here, we in radio, at this table. But I would like to say that
our member stations, more than 50 percent of their clock right
now, their broadcast clock, is local programming. They bring
civil values and civic discourse in a way that is local in its
nature, local in its focus and local in its contact. It cannot
be duplicated, even by national services as, let's say,
National Public Radio itself, as a programming entity, is.
When you add that to the kind of national and international
voices that NPR as a programming entity can bring to those
local stations and those local listeners, you have an amalgam
that is without parallel in the country. The multiplication of
many channels and many sources of information is not going to
necessarily break that up.
Mr. Tauzin. I want to give you three challenges as we
leave. One is obviously, we have a lot of support in the
committee. I think the co-sponsorship is going to grow on the
bill and we will have a chance to move it rapidly. Chairman
Bliley has given us the green light on this, and we hope to get
a bill done as rapidly as we can.
But obviously, it is very important that you fan out, make
sure that we have great support when we get to the Rules
Committee and the floor with this legislation. This is a time
problem, if we are going to get you on a track to make the
digital conversion, well and expertly, and in fairness to the
State legislators who are in fact investing on a local level
into this venture. And to the public, who is equally
contributing their moneys to it.
Second, please do not assume that because we are moving a
straight authorization bill that we are not seriously concerned
about some of the reforms that we have put before you. Continue
please to dialog with us, and seriously work, Mr. Duggan, on
not only making sure that there are standards at the national
level, but at the local level, for the kind of
commercialization we have seen. If digital sites are going to
link up to commercial sites that are not subject to that code,
then perhaps some changes need to be made. Perhaps they ought
to not be linked, or they ought to be linked only on the
condition that they are subject to the same kind of codal
restrictions on over-commercialization of public broadcast
sites on the digital web.
And third, I realize that you had not at least early been
consulted on this microbroadcasting issue. But I would ask you
please to get engaged with it. My particular concern, I have
expressed it to the Chairman of the FCC in private meetings and
have expressed it publicly, is that if we ever get to the point
where we are making legal all these illegal broadcasters, that
if everybody can own a station, God knows who would be licensed
and how those stations would be controlled or regulated, but if
everybody in the world could own a station, broadcast whatever
they want, and we fracture the audience out there so badly, do
we do real damage to the image and the work that public
broadcasters do in a community.
If for example a microstation, five microstations in a
community end up broadcasting to very specific segments of that
community, does that destroy the work you have done in ethnic
and multiracial type communities and outreach that public
broadcasters have been so very successful in doing. I want you
to think about that, please, and interact with us on that
issue, as it may come up again. I think it has been put off for
a while, but it may just pop up ever now and then. I urge you
to pay some attention to it.
Finally, let me thank you all for the contributions you
have made today. As I have said many times, I consider our work
here in Congress is part of an educational process that
probably ought to at some point earn some sort of degree. This
is the best college in America. We have the best resources to
come and educate us, and you constantly come and give us your
time and the benefit of your knowledge. Shame us if we do not
learn, we learn every time and we thank you for that.
LeVar, thank you particularly, sir. Hollywood and
Washington always have this strange mutual admiration society
if something goes on. I don't know what it's all about, except
we do admire the work you guys do. We particularly admire
people like you whose work has more than just commercial value
and commercial stardom connected to it. We appreciate the
givers in your field, and you are one of those givers, and we
want to thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to
say that we have a fine champion in your leadership and the
leadership of this committee in our common cause here. We
certainly appreciate you.
Mr. Tauzin. I want you to do me one other favor. I want you
to critique that work done on the Acadian expulsion and make
sure it's almost as good as Roots.
Mr. Burton. I can almost guarantee there will be a fine
program produced.
Mr. Tauzin. Any other questions? Any other final comments?
Mr. Klose.
Mr. Klose. Mr. Chairman, if I may, on the issue of the
microradios, the position of the NPR board of directors is
that, and I think it applies specifically to us, we of course
embrace the principles of many voices and multiple sources of
information. However, there are many technical issues with
regard to the micros. We, in cooperation with CPB, are doing a
series of engineering studies to find out what the nature of
that interference might be. Until those issues are resolved,
and they are very unclear right now, we need the most thorough
engineering studies we can get to determine whether or not our
current broadcast members, with their stations and their
audiences, what the situation would be going forward with that.
Mr. Tauzin. As a matter of fact, whereas we have given
commercial television broadcasters new space, we are asking
radio broadcasters to convert to digital in the current space,
which I understand, I am no engineer, but my understanding is
that is a much more complex sort of operation. The problems of
interference are much more real. I would encourage you to keep
us informed as to what you discover in that area.
Thank you again very much for your contributions today. The
hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley, Stearns,
Gillmor, Cox, Deal, Largent, Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Pickering,
Fossella, Blunt, Ehrlich, Markey, Rush, Eshoo, Wynn, Luther,
Sawyer, Green, and Dingell (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Norwood.
Staff present: Cliff Riccio, legislative clerk; Justin
Lilley, majority counsel; Michael O'Rielly, professional staff
member; and Andy Levin, minority counsel.
Mr. Tauzin. The subcommittee will please come to order. We
ask that all our guests take seats and that someone catch the
door right behind you.
Good morning. Today we meet with a deep sense of
disappointment. This subcommittee meets again today to discuss
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Authorization Act of
1999. What began as an attempt to fund Public Broadcasting
while continuing debate on its reform has now broadened into an
inquiry about the practices of certain recipients of CPB funds.
This committee is deeply disappointed about the stories that
have surfaced in the press about public broadcast stations
sharing the names of their membership, personal information
about their members, with third parties, in some cases with
political parties.
Let me at the start disabuse hopefully this meeting of
three, I think, misconceptions. The first is that as we begin
this process on reauthorizing Public Broadcasting, the
legislation was somehow set in stone. As you know, this member
and together with the ranking minority member and I, we have
worked very diligently on legislation designed to thoroughly
reform the issue of Public Broadcasting, to bring Public
Broadcasting not only into the digital age, but to reform it in
many ways. We end some of the overlapping of functions, the
duality of operations in certain communities to more properly
fund it into the future, to end practices that have led to the
commercialization of Public Broadcasting, and to diminish the
need for Public Broadcasting to compete with commercial
stations both for commercially viable programming and
advertising dollars. We scaled back that effort at the request
of many of the members of this committee, including the
chairman, to do a straight authorization.
Let me assure all the members of this committee that that
was an open process, and remains an open process. Anybody has
any problems with the original draft, the numbers contained in
the original draft, were invited to the first hearing and are
invited again to discuss those concerns with us that we might
have a consensus package when and if this legislation moves. I
would urge members to take advantage of that invitation and to
work with the Chair that we might have such a good consensus
package when, in fact, this legislation is brought forward for
markup.
Second, the news we get from the newspapers about the
activities of public broadcast stations in trading the names of
their subscribers and other personal information about their
subscribers with third parties is disturbing in not one, but
two major aspects. The first is that a publicly supported
entity should think for a moment that it has the right to trade
private information about citizens of this country who deign to
support it with any third party for commercial benefit is
outrageous, should be outlawed if it is not yet, and will be
outlawed if we have the chance to do so in legislation this
year.
Second, trading that information with a political party,
with a public broadcast station cozying up to any political
party, any of the political parties in America, is outrageous.
The idea that public funds spent at a public broadcast station
should ensure the benefit of any one of the political parties
of our country is outrageous. It threatens the integrity of
Public Broadcasting. It further deepens the suspicion that many
people have had about Public Broadcasting, and it damages the
efforts being made in Washington, DC, and across America to
build public support for this adventure.
Let me as a third point disabuse, I hope, our public
broadcast stations of a third notion. The notion that
insulating the cooperation with political parties through so-
called brokers somehow means that the station did nothing wrong
is a false, erroneous notion. The fact that public broadcast
stations may have chosen to sell or trade the list of their
personal information about their subscribers through a broker
to any political party or any third party is equally egregious,
equally wrong, and I hope this committee will join me in
outlawing it.
Finally let me say we have asked our witnesses and the
Corporation to help us do an assessment of the activities of
public broadcast stations across America before this hearing
today. I am disappointed that in many cases the public
broadcast stations have responded that, well, we don't know. We
had somebody doing our--third parties doing our work. Third
parties have handled the distribution of our lists. Third
parties have handled--somebody did it, and they are gone now,
and we don't know whether or not our station engaged in these
practices.
Let me assure you if the information we derive this morning
is not accurate and complete, the Chair will call for a GAO
investigation.
Our first job as a committee is to get the facts. We will
get the facts about these activities. We will learn them
thoroughly. We will understand the motives and the rationale
behind these acts before we proceed with any legislation. And
if we cannot obtain that information directly from our
witnesses or from the Corporation, we will ask the GAO to do so
for us.
And finally, let me return to the word I used at the
beginning of this session. I start this hearing with
disappointment. Many of us who look upon Public Broadcasting as
a real national asset. To have it tarnished in this way, to
have any station, executive, agent, or employee tarnish it in
this way is a crime, a sin, and a shame. We are going to deal
with this. We are going to make these practices, I think,
illegal before we are through, and we are going to put this
behind us. But the damage done to Public Broadcasting is real,
and those responsible for it ought to be ashamed.
The Chair yields now to the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Markey, for an opening statement.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I want to
commend you for calling this additional hearing on legislation
to reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I am,
along with you, Mr. Chairman, an original cosponsor of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of
1999.
The backdrop for this morning's hearing is the disclosure
by a number of public broadcasting stations that its donor
lists have been exchanged with political organizations. We know
that portions of some lists have gone to Democratic National
Committee organizations, and we also know that some lists have
gone to conservative political organizations. If an entity
doesn't keep an eagle eye on its list broker, that broker will
go anywhere with the donor lists that the law allows. I think
that we can all quickly reach a consensus here on the
subcommittee that such donor lists sharing either with
Democrats or Republicans, conservative or liberal political
organizations is inappropriate and should be prohibited in the
future.
We can join together in making sure that such conduct is
prohibited by law, and after having readily agreed on a
bipartisan basis to prohibit the prospective sharing of lists
with political parties, candidates, or organizations, the
question then arises as to whether or not we are going to
starve the system as well. Will we cut the funding? Will we
punish the system?
It seems to me that cutting the funding would result in
these stations continuing to look for additional, more
commercial sources of revenue such as sales or swaps of donor
lists or pushing the line even further on underwriting
acknowledgments on the air. The legislation Chairman Tauzin and
I have introduced was designed to get the system away from
these commercial pressures by giving it the funding needed to
insulate it sufficiently from the creeping commercialism we
have seen in recent years. If we cut the funding, we fuel the
proclivity in some stations to experiment and depart at times
from public broadcast's noncommercial mission.
I believe the legislation introduced by Chairman Tauzin and
myself underscores the bipartisan support that Public
Broadcasting enjoys throughout America. I believe that the
funding levels in the legislation reinforces the firm
commitment in Congress to providing an electronic oasis for
learning and information in what has been called the vast
wasteland of commercial television. Free over-the-air
noncommercial television and radio are indispensable media
outlets in our communities today by millions of Americans, and
especially millions of children and their parents. We must
remember that telecommunications technology can only empower
those who can obtain it or those who can afford to get it. Not
every American family can afford cable.
And let's just check it on the TV listings for the upwards
of 35 percent of America's children who live in families who do
not subscribe to cable. What's been on free over-the-air
commercial TV for them in the last few days? Well, on Jenny
Jones today is a show called controlling husbands. Also on
Leeza is sexuality in the U.S.A. On Jerry Springer, we have
tales of infidelity. Yesterday, Jerry had secret sex lives,
while on Maury there was a show entitled wild teens visit
prison. Ricki Lake had lie detector tests gauge mates'
fidelity. Jenny Jones had on nubile fans, while Sally Jessy
Raphael had women caught in love triangles. Last week noncable
families could have sat in the living room and watched women
flaunt buxomness on Jenny Jones, or they could have seen
gender-bending situations on Jerry Springer.
Compare that with Public Broadcasting today. Here in
Washington examples of what is on WETA and on just about every
other public television station in America include starting the
morning with Arthur. Then we have Barney and Friends, Whimsy'S
House, Sesame Street, Big Comfy Couch, Health Week, Travel
Magazine, Antiques Road Show, Mr. Rogers, Puzzle Place,
Wishbone, Zoom, all kid-friendly shows all the way up to the
point at which the News Hour with Jim Lehrer begins at 6 or
6:30 or 7 on public broadcasting stations. This lineup is then
followed in the evening with quality programming dramas,
science shows or history shows.
At a cost of just over $1 per year per person, what parents
and kids get from free over-the-air public TV and public radio
is an incredible bargain. As I said at the first hearing, to me
the question is not can we afford it, but rather can we afford
to lose it at $1 per person per year?
Again, I want to thank Chairman Tauzin for the hard work
and attention he has brought to this issue, and I look forward
to working with him as we further explore important public
policy issues related to Public Broadcasting. Again, I look
forward to hearing from our expert panel without question,
though I agree with the chairman that the activities which have
been identified in the last couple of weeks have to be
prohibited. We have to ensure that on a bipartisan basis we say
no to those kinds of activities that have been identified that
blur the distinction between the public broadcasting system and
the partisan political network in our country.
I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edward J. Markey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts
Good Morning. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin for calling this
additional hearing today on legislation to re-authorize the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting. I am an original cosponsor of the
``Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of 1999,''
introduced by Chairman Tauzin.
The backdrop for this morning's hearing is the disclosure by a
number of public broadcasting stations that its donor lists have been
exchanged with political organizations. We know that portions of some
lists have gone to the Democratic National Committee and we also know
that some lists have gone to conservative political organizations. If
an entity doesn't keep an eagle eye on its list broker, that broker
will go anywhere with the donor list that the law allows.
I think that we can all quickly reach a consensus here on the
Committee that such donor list sharing--either with Democrats or
Republicans, conservative or liberal political organizations--is
inappropriate and should be prohibited in the future. We can join
together in making sure that such conduct is prohibited by law.
After having readily agreed on a bipartisan basis to prohibit the
prospective sharing of lists with political parties, candidates or
organizations, the question then arrives as to whether or not we are
going to starve the system as well. Will we cut the funding? Will we
punish the system? It seems to me that cutting the funding would result
in these stations continuing to look for additional, more commercial
sources of revenue--such as sales or swaps of donor lists, or pushing
the line even further on underwriting acknowledgments on the air.
The legislation Chairman Tauzin and I have introduced was designed
to get the system away from these commercial pressures by giving it the
funding needed to insulate it sufficiently from the ``creeping
commercialism'' we have seen in recent years. If we cut the funding, we
fuel the proclivity in some stations to experiment and depart at times
from public broadcasting's non-commercial mission.
I believe the legislation introduced by Chairman Tauzin underscores
the bipartisan support that public broadcasting enjoys throughout
America. I believe that the funding levels in the legislation
reinforces the firm commitment in Congress to providing an electronic
oasis for learning and information in what has been called the vast
wasteland of commercial television. Free, over-the-air non-commercial
television and radio are indispensable media outlets in our communities
today for millions of Americans and especially millions of children and
their parents.
We must remember that telecommunications technology can only
empower those who can obtain it or those who can afford to get it. Not
every American family can afford cable. And let's just check in on the
TV listings for the upwards of 35 percent of America's children who
live in families that do not subscribe to cable. What's been on free
over-the-air commercial TV for them over the last few days?
Well, on Jenny Jones today is a show called ``Controlling
Husbands''; also today on Leeza is ``Sexuality in the USA'', on Jerry
Springer we have ``Tales of Infidelity''. Yesterday Jerry had ``Secret
Sex Lives'' while on Maury there was a show entitled ``Wild teens visit
prison.'' Ricki Lake had ``Lie detector tests gauge mates' fidelity''.
Jenny Jones had on ``Nubile Thangs'' while Sally Jessy Raphael had on
``Women caught in Love Triangles''. Last week, non-cable families could
have sat in the living room and watched ``Women Flaunt Buxomness'' on
Jenny Jones or they could have seen ``Gender bending situations'' on
Jerry Springer.
Compare that with public broadcasting today. Here in Washington,
examples of what's on WETA include starting the morning with
``Arthur,'' then we have ``Barney and Friends,'' ``Wimzie's House,''
``Sesame Street,'' ``Big Comfy Couch,'' ``Healthweek,'' ``Travel
Magazine,'' ``Antiques Roadshow,'' ``Mr. Rogers,'' ``Puzzle Place,''
``Wishbone,'' ``Zoom''--all kid-friendly shows all the way up to the
Jim Lehrer Newshour. This lineup is then followed in the evening with
quality programming dramas, science shows, or history shows.
At a cost of just over $1 per year per person what parents and kids
get from free over-the-air public TV and public radio is an incredible
bargain. As I said at our first hearing, to me, the question is not,
``Can we afford it?,'' but rather, ``Can we afford to lose it?''
Again, I want to thank Chairman Tauzin for the hard work and
attention he has brought to this issue and I look forward to working
with him as we further explore important public policy issues related
to public broadcasting. And again I want to thank our expert panel of
witnesses for being with us this morning and look forward to their
testimony.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
I yield now to the vice chairman of the Telecommunications
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was in his first
term in the White House and I was in my second term in the
House, my first on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I offered
four amendments to two CPB authorization bills. The measures I
sought to amend would have authorized three times the Reagan
administration's budget request for Public Broadcasting. The
first amendment was designed to cut the authorization back to a
mere 25 percent increase. The second would have reduced CPB
funding to the administration's request. Republicans were deep
in the minority in those days, and both of my amendments failed
miserably. However, both measures were vetoed by President
Reagan, who, in his first veto message said that he would have
supported the more reasonable funding levels of my amendment.
Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Mr. Chairman, when we consider authorization levels for Public
Broadcasting, I believe we have to ask ourselves the following
threshold question: Should the viewing habits of those who
watch Masterpiece Theater really be subsidized by those who
prefer the World Wrestling Federation?
In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
importance of reauthorizing the CPB, and I understand the need
to do so in a timely fashion. I support reauthorizing the CPB,
and I support helping fund the transition to digital
broadcasting, but not without reform and not at the levels
contemplated under the legislation before us.
Of course, the chairman has acknowledged these concerns,
and I appreciate his willingness to work with us to put
together a package that we can all support.
I believe there is consensus on the committee that Public
Broadcasting needs reform. In my opinion, one of the major
goals of such reform should be to point Public Broadcasting in
the direction of self-sufficiency and move away from the cycle
of annual appropriations. In the past, the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting has been challenged to come up with
innovative new sources of funding to replace tax dollars,
whether it be enhanced underwriting or enhanced advertising,
something that I proposed about 10 years ago. We had some
support at that time from the public broadcasting stations,
including the gentleman who headed up the Public Broadcasting
System in Chicago, who was very much in favor of what we tried
to do in regard to enhanced underwriting and advertising. But
unfortunately the powers that be at Public Broadcasting
prevailed, and we continue to increase public funding.
We have talked about increased royalties from the marketing
of licensed merchandise, consolidation of facilities or some
other marketplace solution. After all, if CPB funding makes up
only 14 percent of public broadcasting's total budget, self-
sufficiency seems like a reasonable goal. Yet here we are in
1999 with business as usual and no reforms in place. The only
real change is the CPB's budget requests have gotten a lot
higher.
And then this list-swapping scandal comes along. When WGBH
first got caught, they said it was a one-time mistake by a low-
level employee. Now we are learning drip by drip it is a
widespread practice going back years and years. Worse, it makes
WGBH's initial public statement look like a failed attempt at
some type of cover-up. Even as a Public Broadcasting watchdog,
I never would have guessed that a public broadcasting station
would engage in anything so stupid and so nakedly partisan.
What's more, the stations engaged in these inappropriate
arrangements with the DNC are the very stations responsible for
the bulk of the programming produced by public broadcasters.
This is not the place you want to uncover proof of partisan
bias.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling today's hearing. I
look forward to getting some answers out of the first panel. I
look forward to moving a reform reauthorization bill in the
very near future, and I yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now yields to the ranking minority of the full
committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell, again, the Chair appreciates the cooperation
of the gentleman from Michigan in the waiver required for us to
have this hearing today.
I now yield to the member from Michigan.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you. We are delighted to talk to the
Chair on these matters, and I commend you for holding this
hearing.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
revise and extend my remarks. Second of all, Mr. Chairman, I
wish to make just a few brief comments.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly hope that the recent controversy over the fact
that some public stations have shared their donor lists with
political groups doesn't overshadow the importance of
maintaining a strong and vibrant Public Broadcasting Service
for the people of Massachusetts, California, and every
community in between. I would like to say that I regard this as
a valuable, important and useful service to all Americans, and
I am, of course, pleased to support it.
I hope that we will get to the bottom of the questions
associated with the rental of lists, et cetera. I note that is
about to be a matter of some discussion here, and I hope that
this would indicate on the part of my Republican colleagues
that their outrage over this matter would indicate that they
intend to move forward toward some kind of campaign finance
reform. I think it augurs well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. Just a few weeks ago,
Members of this Subcommittee heard testimony from a large panel of
distinguished witnesses on the bill to reauthorize the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, H.R. 2384. They were unanimous in strong support
of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, and for good reason. It is a fine
bill; one which I was proud to be an original cosponsor with you and
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Chairman, you are to be congratulated on your effort to pass
the first reauthorization of public broadcasting since 1992. But, more
importantly, you are to be congratulated for drafting a bill that is
truly supportive of the valuable public service that non-commercial
broadcasting provides.
Today, more than ever, the American people are yearning for an
alternative to what many see as a decay in the quality of programming
on commercial radio and television. During the last hearing, we
discussed a recent report by the Annenberg Public Policy Center on the
current state of children's television. It came as no surprise that the
trends were disturbing. There is more violence, more sex, and more
suggestive language in programs aimed at our children today than at any
time in the history of television.
These results come despite commitments by commercial broadcasters
to air more children's educational programming, and despite the
introduction of a new television ratings system. As well meaning as
these efforts may have been, they are no replacement for the
development of more and better programming by non-commercial
broadcasters whose motives and mindset are fixed on values other than
the bottom line.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the recent controversy over the
fact that some public stations have shared their donor lists with
political groups doesn't overshadow the importance of maintaining a
strong and vibrant public broadcasting service for the people of
Massachusetts, California, and every community in between.
I know you share the view of most Americans that the efforts of
public broadcasters pay dividends far greater than the amount we invest
as a nation. The public doesn't want Congress to censor the programs
they don't like; rather, they want us to encourage the creation of
shows that they do. That is precisely the mission of public
broadcasting, and I hope the Committee will stand firm in its
commitment to authorize funding that pays more than lip service to the
needs of our nation and its children.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentleman from Florida Mr. Stearns for an
opening statement.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me compliment you
for calling this hearing and in a timely manner. As my
colleagues know, we are here also to talk about--to address the
issue of authorization levels, and this controversy, I have
great empathy for our witnesses today. I think every Member of
Congress has been in a position where he or she has had to
explain something where something has happened in their
campaign or congressional career which they couldn't quite
fathom. So I think we are all a little sympathetic with you,
and we are here to help you, but we also have to get to the
bottom of this.
One of the things, before I go on to this controversy, I
might talk about is the authorization levels in H.R. 2384 I
don't think are going to happen. It does not equate to these
appropriations, so I think it is unlikely that this committee
will receive or appropriate those kind of levels. So then that
leaves us with the question as how are we going to go about and
fund CPB and the American public television networks. I think
some of the questions that we are going to ask you are going to
have to provide answers on how you think we should go forward
the next 5, 10 years, and I will associate my comments with my
colleague from Ohio that sometime down the road we should
privatize public television so that you don't have to go
through these tortuous hearings and explanations.
And perhaps one thing you might comment on is perhaps how
generous underwriting rules might be changed to allow you to
move to digital conversion, because remember, Congress itself
has mandated that you move to digital conversion. And so with
that in mind, I think Congress has to understand we must
provide some means and help so that you can do that.
That being said, let me just take the latter part to
address the sharing of donor lists between public television
stations and political or social organizations.
I think the chairman's quote that was in the New York Times
editorial today in which he said, quote, it undermines the
faith in broadcasting, I think sums it up how all of us feel,
but I would point out in today's Washington Times, they say
that public television and radio stations have swapped their
membership lists with groups that support, support, abortion,
gun control, and other very politically charged issues.
Now, this is very difficult for, I think, people to
understand. When you are swapping your donor lists with Handgun
Control, Incorporated, Planned Parenthood, and Zero Population
Growth is just a few of the groups the public stations have
swapped with, and I think many of us find that this undermines
our faith in Public Broadcasting. And even how it was handled
with the Boston station, WGBH, you know, at one time they had
reported that this is a one-time mistake is what they said, and
lo and behold, they later revealed, in fact, that that was not
true, and they had been sharing their donor lists with the
Democrat National Committee beginning in the 1980's. And so, I
mean, the story starts to unravel, and then we find it is
across the country that they are doing this.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Public
Broadcasting come up with a solution in which they have an
outside commission or an outside board investigate this and not
come forward and say, our inspector general said such and such.
I think your credibility has been undermined. I think you have
an opportunity to restore yourself, and I think it can only be
done by someone outside Public Broadcasting. And so I call on
you today to put into your game plan an outside group of
individuals respected by both sides, by all people in America,
to investigate this so that we can get to the bottom of this,
and obviously on a legislative side, we intend to make sure
this doesn't happen again.
So I feel some compassion for you folks on the witness
stand today, and I think as members, we have to come up with a
solution here so that we can get to the next 5 to 10 years
where they are privatized, as my colleague from Ohio has said,
and I think if we do that, then Public Broadcasting can make
the move to digital, and then in the end we will have a more
competitive organization. And I thank the chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo is recognized.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. I, along with, I think, everyone that is here,
is disappointed that we have to be here today to discuss the
sharing of donor lists by PBS stations with political
organizations. Everyone knows it is wrong. Everyone senses the
sting of the embarrassment, and I hope that what is necessary
to come out in a hearing will be separated out from some of the
comments that Mr. Markey made about what a great value Public
Broadcasting is to the people of our Nation. While I still
believe the funding we will provide for CPB presents one of the
very best investments Congress can make, this episode has left
me feeling really let down and, most frankly, over the weekend
sometimes angry, but we have to move on.
I understand that the affiliates involved have begun to
implement internal procedures to end this. I am sure that there
is a scramble to do so, and I think that that is important. In
light of the current situation, perhaps these internal policies
really won't be enough. I think that whatever emerges has to
give the American people the confidence that this simply cannot
penetrate any station anymore, and I think that good policy can
assure that.
Obviously, there isn't any excuse for the mistakes that
have been made. The Washington Post today, I think, used the
word ``stupidity,'' and it stands in such stark contrast to the
extraordinary intelligence that has been applied artistically
and otherwise to PBS.
It is my hope that my colleagues won't use this episode as
a return really to what we experienced here in the Chambers 4
years ago when my Republican colleagues were putting the
entirety of Public Broadcasting squarely on the chopping block.
If we do that, we are really going to be punishing the American
people. That is not a solution.
Today we are going to hear during our second panel
witnesses testifying that the Federal Government has no
business in funding Public Broadcasting. Fortunately, we are
also going to hear testimony from famous filmmaker Ken Burns,
whose films have added so much to the understanding of the
American people of their own American history.
Mr. Burns points out in his written testimony that were it
not for the grant that he received from CPB, his brilliant
series on the Civil War would have never been made. I am
certain that all of us, each of us, can think of many, many
fine examples of similar excellent programming that Public
Broadcasting has produced.
So it is my great hope, Mr. Chairman, that the mistakes
that have been made by a number of stations do not poison the
well and that, once again, if the Congress punishes the
stations, they will indeed be punishing the American people.
So I can't say that I am looking forward to the painful
testimony today. It is necessary. The American system is one
that brings things out into the public and that we move on from
what we learn so that we make sure that these mistakes are not
made again. I would support language in the reauthorization
that would essentially outlaw any exchanging or selling of
lists. As a Democrat and as a great supporter of KWED and
public broadcasting, I really don't need to have my party
involved in it. It is enough, I think, as a contributor to my
party that I raise my voice in support of Public Broadcasting.
So I don't need the lists sold or exchanged or shared.
Again, I don't look forward to all of this. I wasn't
looking forward to walking into the hearing room today, but we
can do this. We will get through it, and let's just make sure
that we leave this intact and whole, because I really think it
is a gift to the American people, and separate all of this out,
make it illegal, set good policies and move on. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair yields to the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox,
and at the same time the chairman would like to commend the
gentleman for his interest in this matter and for the attention
he has paid to it, and also to reassure the member that we
intend a second hearing so we can hear a number of the
witnesses whom he wanted to hear who could not be here today.
The Chair now yields to Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. I appreciate the chairman. As you know, I also
paid a special interest in the oversight investigation
subcommittee hearing going on upstairs, so I will try also to
pay attention to its simultaneously occurring.
Government-funded mass media is a dangerous admixture. It
requires an exception to our general rule that free expression
in a free society will be hindered if it is influenced by the
government. It requires a presumption that the marketplace of
ideas will be devoid of some very important commodity unless
government steps in to fill the void. In the information age
that presumption is increasingly subject to question, but if we
accept that presumption, and if we make an exception to the
rule against government involvement in the content of mass
media America, then very sturdy firewalls are needed to prevent
politics from infecting programming content. The fact that
taxpayer-financed public television and radio is sharing its
donor lists with the Democratic National Committee, Zero
Population Growth, and other political organizations makes it
clear that those firewalls are not in place.
Today's Washington Post editorial page appropriately calls
this stupidity. The New York Times calls it an extraordinary
display of carelessness. The Boston Globe notes, it appears to
violate public television's tax-exempt status.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to second your request for the
General Accounting Office to fully examine these matters. This
will help us get to the bottom of it. It is ironic that today's
hearing comes on the heels of our hearing just last week on how
best to protect consumer privacy in the information age. At
that hearing members on both sides of the aisle, Republican and
Democrat, talked about how important it is for enterprises that
collect personal information to accurately inform consumers
about whether and with whom they will share this information.
We heard testimony from the members of the Federal Trade
Commission that there should be consequences for enterprises
that fail to live up to sound privacy policies. WGBH, the well-
known PBS affiliate in Boston, actually assured its consumers
that it had an official station policy against sharing its
members' names, addresses, and other information with partisan
political groups, but this policy, as was recently discovered,
was apparently just lip service.
A 4-year-old boy, Sam Black, is a fan of the Barney
television show, which airs in his hometown of Wellesley,
Massachusetts. Sam's mother, Jody Black, sent WGBH a $40 check
for their children's program. She included Sam's name with a
donation. Later 4-year-old Sam Black received a fund-raising
letter from the Democratic National Committee seeking his
financial help in getting Democrats elected to office.
Initially WGBH attempted to suggest this was an inadvertent
violation, a misunderstanding. The station's vice president for
communications blamed it on a new employee, but once the Boston
papers began to dig deeper, it became clear that this practice
of selling names, addresses and other personal information was
officially sanctioned by the executives at the station.
So the question before us today is what did the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting do when it learned of these reports in
early May 1999? To quote from an editorial in today's New York
Times, ``amazingly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
which distributes Federal money to stations, did nothing.''
Since then, the media, not the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, not taxpayer-supported media, but first-
amendment-supported media, have discovered that this practice
of selling or swapping names and addresses and other personal
information with Democrat fund-raisers is far more widespread.
In San Francisco, KQED admitted sharing its membership lists
with the campaign to reelect Senator Barbara Boxer. They also
shared it with the Democrat National Committee. Senator Boxer's
office has, in fact, confirmed using the list for fund-raising
purposes.
The New York Times said today organizations that depend
partly on public money to survive should not play politics.
That was their editorial. And the Times added, this ought to be
a simple and self-evident rule. We should hold public
broadcasters accountable to this simple and self-evident rule,
and we should insist that PBS hold its own employees and its
member stations fully accountable.
I thank the chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher Cox, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Government-funded mass media is a dangerous admixture. It requires
an exception to our general rule that free expression in a free society
will be hindered if it is influenced by government. It requires a
presumption that the marketplace of ideas will be devoid of some very
important commodity unless government steps in to fill the void. In the
Information Age, that presumption is increasingly subject to question.
But if one accepts it, and if we make an exception to the rule
against government involvement in the content of mass media in America,
then very sturdy firewalls are needed to prevent politics from
infecting programming content. The fact that taxpayer-funded public
television and radio are sharing their donor lists with the Democratic
National Committee, Zero Population Growth, and other political
organizations shows those firewalls don't exist.
Today's Washington Post editorial page appropriately calls this
list-sharing ``stupidity.'' The New York Times calls it ``an
extraordinary display of carelessness.'' The Boston Globe notes it
appears to violate public television's tax-exempt status.
Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to second your request for the General
Accounting Office to fully examine these matters. This will help us get
to the bottom of these matters.
It is ironic that today's hearing comes on the heels of our hearing
just last week on how best to protect consumer privacy in the
information age. At that hearing, members on both sides of the aisle--
Republican and Democrat--talked about how important it is for
enterprises that collect personal information to accurately inform
consumers about whether, and with whom, they will share this
information. We heard testimony from the members of the Federal Trade
Commission that there should be consequences for enterprises that fail
to live up to sound privacy policies.
WGBH, the well-known PBS affiliate in Boston, actually assured its
consumers that it had an official station policy against sharing its
members' names, addresses, and other information with partisan
political groups. But this policy, as was recently discovered, was
apparently just lip-service. We learned this in the case of Sam Black,
a 4-year old boy.
Sam is a fan of the ``Barney and Friends'' television show, which
airs in his hometown of Wellesley on WGBH. Sam's mother, Jody Black,
sent WGBH a $40 check to thank them for their children's programming.
She included Sam's name with the donation. Later, 4-year-old Sam Black
received a fundraising letter from the Democratic National Committee,
seeking his financial help in getting Democrats elected to office.
Initially, WGBH attempted to suggest this was an inadvertent
violation, a ``misunderstanding.'' The station's vice president for
communications blamed it on a new employee. But once the Boston papers
began to dig deeper, it became clear that this practice--selling names,
addresses, and other personal information--was in fact sanctioned by
the executives at the station.
What did the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do when it learned
of these reports in early May? To quote from an editorial in today's
New York Times: ``Amazingly, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
which distributes Federal money to stations, did nothing.''
Since then, the media--not CPB, not taxpayer-supported media, but
First Amendment-supported media--have discovered that this practice of
selling or swapping names, addresses, and other personal information
with Democrat fundraisers is far more widespread.
In San Francisco, KQED admitted to sharing its membership lists
with the campaign to re-elect Senator Barbara Boxer. They also shared
it with the Democrat National Committee. Senator Boxer's office has in
fact confirmed using the list for fundraising purposes.
``Organizations that depend partly on public money to survive
should not play politics,'' the New York Times rightly states. And, the
Times add, this ought to be a ``simple and self-evident rule.'' We
should hold public broadcasters accountable to this rule. And we should
insist that CPB hold its own member stations fully accountable.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The gentleman from Ohio Mr. Luther is recognized.
Mr. Luther is not here. The gentleman Mr. Sawyer is
recognized.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing. I think we all come here with a measure of discomfort
over the specifics that bring us here today. I simply want to
say that I hope that the committee will not substantially
revise its approach, which was developed in a quieter
environment, in terms of the way we expect to support public
television and Public Broadcasting in general over the next few
years. We certainly should not penalize public broadcasters
because of the mistakes of a few stations or, frankly, the deep
misjudgments of the few individuals within them. Public
television, Public Broadcasting, public radio hold this Nation
together in ways that very few other institutions do.
It is in the face of this that I suppose that I really
appreciate what the gentleman, Mr. Cox, had to say about the
perspective that this places on privacy to begin with. The
notion that broadcasters would sell donor lists to any third
party brings deep dismay at the fact that my donation would be
available as a matter of what I would never have suspected to
be public record. But having said that, it puts into real
perspective the rage that many of us feel in the selling of
vastly more sensitive information about ourselves and our
families, our finances, and our health issues for commercial
gains in other settings in the way we talked about just last
week. That is a far deeper violation of personal trust, and,
frankly, it is not merely enough simply to inform me that you
are selling this information about me. It seems to me we need
deeper prohibitions there, perhaps even more importantly than
we do on the subject that brings us here today.
Having said that, I do share that disappointment, but let
me suggest that the role that CPB and all of its affiliates
bring to the Nation is really much more than we get anywhere
else. I know that we hear a great deal about the Discovery
Channel and the History Channel, and that is wonderful, but the
fact is that when we talk about privatizing Public
Broadcasting, it seems to me that we lose the heart and soul
that has made it what it is. Public broadcasting has been a
pioneer in identifying and nurturing an audience for the kind
of innovations and program content that today provides
substantial commercial benefit in the cable environment. And
that freedom to take risks in pursuit of quality is the
hallmark of Public Broadcasting and is almost entirely absent
from commercial television, not that quality programing is, but
the ability to take that risk on a regular basis is, broadcast
or cable, where even the very best programming often replicates
innovations that were first proven in the public setting.
I am glad we have the Discovery Channel, and I am even more
glad that they had public broadcasters who had the vision and
the courage and the freedom to experiment beyond the realm of
commercial programming. I hope we don't lose that, Mr.
Chairman. I hope we don't lose that in the concern that brings
us here together today. And I am grateful that we have the
candid participation of so many leaders within the industry to
share their perspective on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Sawyer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this second reauthorization
hearing for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I want to also
thank our witnesses for coming to testify before us.
Recent discoveries in the past week have posed serious questions on
how this Subcommittee should proceed with respect to providing a multi-
year reauthorization for public broadcasting. We started out with
legislation that would have provided a straight reauthorization--no
reform or station matching requirements were included in the bill. I
supported that effort. However, I have read reports that because of the
recent list sharing discoveries that the Corporation's authorization
level will be substantially reduced. I hope this Subcommittee
reconsiders that approach. We should not penalize all public
broadcasters because of the mistakes of a few stations--or, more
precisely, the misjudgement of a few individuals within those stations.
As I have said before, public broadcasting not only brings the full
range of entertainment, radio, and arts to the American people every
day, it ties this Nation together. Without it many Americans would be
deprived of the educational and cultural programs that these public
broadcast stations provide.
I do not agree with the notion that the time has come for public
broadcasting to stop receiving federal funding. Currently, federal
funding for public broadcasting comprises only a small portion of the
budgets for public broadcast stations. The remainder come from sources
like private corporations, universities, and individual donors. Federal
dollars help public broadcast stations to leverage their existing
resources to meet the demands of their constituencies as well as to
make necessary improvements to the stations.
I recognize that there are several other programs on cable
networks, and occasionally on broadcast networks, that provide similar
programming to that of the CPB's affiliates. For instance, the
Discovery Channel has quality and educationally enhancing programming,
but it is not readily available to everyone. Not everyone has the
ability to subscribe to cable. However, public broadcasting's mission
is to provide programming for everyone, including those who cannot
afford cable to those who live in rural areas. That is one big
distinction between the two. The other is that cable oriented programs
can be susceptible to heavy commercialization. Therefore, who ever
covers the cost of the program being aired can actually dictate what is
being shown. To a large extent, that does not happen with programming
aired by public broadcast stations.
Even more important, the CPB has been a pioneer in identifying and
nurturing the audience for the kind of innovations in program content
that today promises substantial commercial benefit in the cable
environment. That freedom to take risks in pursuit of quality is the
hallmark of public broadcasting and is almost entirely absent from
commercial television, broadcast or cable, where even the very best
programming often replicates innovations first proven in the public
setting. I'm glad we have the Discovery Channel, and I'm glad they had
public broadcasters who had the vision and courage and freedom to
experiment beyond the realm of the commercially proven.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of my observations. Maybe in
light of the recent developments we should consider requiring public
broadcasters to make concerted efforts to reform some of their
practices. However, I don't believe substantially cutting their funding
level because there are other channels providing similar programming is
the right approach. Public broadcasting serves as a primary resource
for all of our constituents, and they deserve to continue receiving the
quality programming they have become accustomed to receiving in the
past.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma.
In doing so, the Chair would like to preface the recognition
with an announcement. The Chair has asked for guidance from the
staff on the question of members showing videos in their
opening statements, and the Chair is prepared to interpret the
rules to indicate that so long as members stay within the time
allotted for opening statements, that members of the committee
will be permitted to display video in connection with their
opening statement.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent, is now recognized
for an opening statement.
Mr. Largent. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
timely hearing on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1999
reauthorization. Needless to say, a great deal of information
has come to light regarding the fund-raising methods of some of
PBS's largest stations over the past week. What was first
reported to be an isolated incident of donors list-swapping
between the Boston PBS affiliate and the Democratic National
Committee is in reality a widespread practice among PBS
stations throughout the country.
Last week articles on the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting chronicled the fact that PBS stations in New York,
Washington, and San Francisco have entered into similar
membership list-swapping, selling or renting arrangements with
the Democratic National Committee. To be fair, it has also been
reported that some of these stations have entered into
membership list-swapping deals with Republican groups.
Regardless of whether the list-swapping occurred with the
Democratic National Committee or the Republican-leaning groups,
this practice should not be condoned and should cease
immediately.
If this story was not disheartening enough, I learned
yesterday from an article in the Weekly Standard entitled,
PBS's Massage Parlor, that all 500 employees at the Public
Broadcasting Service's headquarters are eligible for federally
subsidized massages during office hours. Apparently, according
to the article, there is a massage signup sheet outside the
sixth floor human resources offices. Those employees that don't
have an opportunity to go to the sixth floor are notified by e-
mail.
I don't think I am going too far out on a limb when I say
that even the most ardent PBS supporter would find this to be
an extravagant perk, especially considering that PBS is a not-
for-profit corporation.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, with the subcommittee's
indulgence, I would like to show a brief excerpt from a
documentary that aired last month on a Nebraska public
television station entitled, Its Elementary: Talking About Gay
Issues in School.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Largent. I have to believe, Mr. Chairman, that most
parents in America would object to their 6- or 7-year-old being
exposed to such mature subject matter at school at such a young
age, being homosexual or heterosexual. I would venture to guess
that most of the children in the video don't have the slightest
idea of what a gay or lesbian lifestyle means, and furthermore,
they are learning about it from a complete stranger.
Nevertheless, according to the Nebraska's public broadcasting
magazine, Nebraska ETV believes it is important to increase
awareness and provide information about this divisive topic.
I know some are thinking that I am taking a few isolated
incidents and blowing them out of proportion in an effort to
defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is not my
intent. Rather I am using these examples to highlight the need
for reform at CPB. After 32 years it is time for CPB to become
more self-sufficient. Simply put, Big Bird is nearly 30 years
old, and it is time to leave the Federal nest.
It should not be as difficult as some might think. Federal
funding accounts for only 14 percent of PBS's total operating
budget. Notwithstanding the It's Elementary documentary, public
broadcasting offers a great deal of quality programming such as
the civil war and baseball anthology series produced by one of
our witnesses today, Mr. Ken Burns. The PBS community has
determined that it will need $1.7 billion to convert to digital
television by 2003. They are requesting $700 million from
Congress for this purpose. I am confident that this
subcommittee, with the assistance of CPB and other interested
parties, can work together to enhance Public Broadcasting's
underwriting abilities and increase its licensing revenues from
the sale of toys, books and videos associated with PBS
programming to decrease the Federal share of the digital
conversion cost.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, this should not be
viewed as a partisan attempt to defund PBS. Rather it is a
sincere effort to make CPB more efficient while saving several
millions of American taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and other
members of the subcommittee on this issue, and I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair would advise members that we have been now called
to a 15-minute vote on suspending the rules and passage
followed by four 5-minute votes. The Chair will take an
additional statement or two, and we will recess. I suspect it
would be best to recess until the hour of noon so that everyone
can--if you can catch a quick lunch before we come back. We
will take a few more statements and recess until noon.
The gentleman, Mr. Green from Texas, is recognized.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your
calling this additional hearing. Let me say first that Public
Broadcasting provides high-quality and educational programming
for children. Such shows as Barney and Friends and Sesame
Street have often been cited by parents as the best shows for
children, and I know that, even though my children are now
college graduates, they enjoyed that when they were that age.
I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and it goes a long
way in assisting and providing for PBS stations to continue to
provide these quality programs.
Let me address the recent controversy broken out on whether
or not a PBS station has the legal right to trade, sell, or
lease their donor lists to a political party. Let me say I am
glad that KHOU TV in Houston has said they don't do that, and I
think the concern I have is that the donor lists trading is
wrong, and it should not happen, and we should stop it, if
necessary, to do this reauthorization.
But let me go a step further in following up on Mr. Cox,
using the same information that we did on the H.R. 10. Maybe we
should require if there is a way to--that they want to earn
money from those lists, it should be with the permission of
that donor only, and if approved by the donors. And let's
realize that these exchanges and lists were made to raise the
85 percent of the funding that the Federal Government can't
provide. So in some cases maybe those local stations were much
more aggressive than they should have been, but again, to raise
85 percent when we provide less than 15 percent, less than 14,
according to my colleague from Oklahoma.
This, however, should not be the issue. We should look at
how can Congress assist in providing the high-quality
educational television and refocus on authorizing the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to make sure they have the
necessary funds to continue to provide that broadcasting and
also funds that they can convert to digital television.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady Mrs. Cubin for an
opening statement.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing. I can't help but wonder whether or not if you
would ask those young children, babies really, after they had
the presentation what is a gay person, if they might not have
said it is somebody that jumps up and down on one foot and
plays soccer. So I really feel that it is a violation of all
parental guidance to have something like that be shown to
children.
It was approximately 2 weeks ago when this subcommittee
began to learn of the situation in Boston where WGBH, a tax-
exempt public television station, shared the names of its
donors with the campaign arm of the Democratic Party. Since
that time the number of stations who engage in the same type of
practice has grown considerably. In fact, over the last 48
hours I have learned of at least four or five other public
broadcasting stations that have been sharing their list of
donors with the DNC as well.
This hearing is going to be important in finding out how
widespread this practice has become and what steps this
subcommittee must take to end this illegal activity. From the
press accounts I have read, there seems to be an inaccurate
depiction by CPB and Public Broadcasting executives as to how
serious this matter is. In several accounts I have seen the
public television executives who have referred to this matter
as a violation of station rules or a mistake made by
inexperienced office personnel and the common practice by these
types of organizations. Let there be no doubt this is illegal
activity. As a nonprofit organization, the Federal law
prohibits CPB from sharing donor lists with any political
organization or any political candidate. That is very clear.
The sooner CPB admits to this illegal activity, the better.I am
sure we all want to put this behind us, but unless there is
some acknowledgment of wrongdoing, it will linger on with this
committee or until this committee takes further action.
I join with the chairman in calling for a study by the GAO,
and I also call on the Internal Revenue Service to investigate
how widespread this problem is and to take action to stations
that engage in political activities. If the IRS finds that this
practice is engaged in by a majority of CPB-funded stations, it
is my feeling that the CPB's tax-exempt status should be
revoked and that Congress should begin a process of phasing out
funding for CPB.
The conclusion has already been drawn that PBS and NPR
programming can stand on its own without taxpayers footing the
bill. The Federal Government's contribution to PBS is
approximately 14 percent. It is my belief that the profit
derived from the program-related merchandise and other
commercial activities engaged in by CPB-sponsored stations will
more than make up the difference.
Competitive, educational programming has taken root since
the advent of CPB in 1967. The legislation that created public
educational television was certainly important and necessary at
the time. I think we in Congress do need to reevaluate as time
passes, however. Today the educational void is being filled by
private, commercial television stations that have proven
successful in bringing intelligent and responsible programming
to our Nation's children and their parents. At the very
minimum, this committee must take a second look at the funding
levels that are put forth in H.R. 2384. I commend Chairman
Tauzin for his willingness to do that, and I applaud his
leadership in addressing the subcommittee's concern.
I look forward to hearing from the panelists and thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time,.
The Chair thanks the gentlelady as usual for excellent
comments and would now recess the committee until 12 noon. The
committee stands in recess.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Tauzin. The committee will please come to order. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Ehrlich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have a
written statement, but I understand the panelists are anxious
to get going. I feel compelled to make a number of points, Mr.
Chairman. One, I do want to associate myself first with remarks
from my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Oxley.
Second, I want to acknowledge and thank the chairman for
this hearing today and the scheduled hearing to follow. Third,
I want to commend Congressman Largent for what he did today.
Mr. Chairman, I, in response to the earlier hearing we had an
opportunity to draft a letter dated July 6 to Mr. Duggan in
follow-up to his testimony. And my first question in follow-up
to his testimony was in relation to, pertaining to the phrase
he used in his submission to the committee when he mentioned
the public broadcasting services' cultural mission. I asked him
to define for me PBS's cultural mission and its collective
efforts to successfully fulfill this mission. Obviously it is
an issue important to members of this committee. It has already
been said, and I would like to restate to the panel, we have
sympathy for your position here. We have all been in this
position, usually with reporters on the other side. Quite
frankly I am less concerned with the distance faux pas. We can
certainly correct it. I think we will do it through
legislation. I am at least equally interested in the cultural
mission of public broadcasting and the philosophical
orientation that follows from that sort of phrase.
I really enjoy the member from Massachusetts not only in
the gym but also his intellect, his sense of humor. We disagree
a lot, but we have a lot of fun and I certainly respect him. I
feel at least compelled to at least take 30 seconds to respond
to his well stated remarks with respect to the trash that is on
TV today. I do feel compelled as somewhat of a rejoinder to,
and, I just pulled the listings today--mention the fact that on
A&E and the Family Channel and Disney and the History Channel
and Nickelodeon, we have America's Castles, we have
investigative reports, biography, we have Walt Disney Presents,
we have Amazing Animals. We have Firefighting. We have the Real
West. We have the 20th Century. We have History Undercover. We
have Tales of the FBI, we have Civil War Journal, we have Life
in the ER, et cetera. There is quality, clearly, on cable
television today. There is trash as well.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we need to look at
whether this public investment, and I think that is probably
the appropriate term, will remain appropriate in the new
millennium given what we have with respect to competition in
that new millennium.
Again, I look forward to working with the ranking member
and the chairman in regard to this very important issue, and I
yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I won't make
any lengthy comments. I would like to say a couple of words,
however. I think at our earlier hearing, we had an emerging
bipartisan appreciation for the importance of public television
in American life, and I was very encouraged by that. It is
unfortunate that some recent events have apparently undermined
that, and I would just say that I would hope that as a
committee that we would not respond inappropriately to an
isolated incident in such a way as to overturn the progress
that has been made in this very important area. It seems to me
that there is some individuals who are responsible and
appropriate sanctions ought to be applied to those individuals
for admittedly very poor judgment. But on the other hand, the
overall mission of public television in this country is so
important, and my colleague from Maryland alluded to the nature
and quality of a program that is being provided that it would
be, I think, a grave mistake if we were to take action in the
heat of passion, as we sometimes say, that would undermine the
overall accomplishments that have been made by public
television.
So I would just say let us not let the baby out with the
bath water. Let us exercise some restraint, apply sanctions
where appropriate, but overall I think we were on the right
track supporting public television. Perhaps with greater
support these kinds of problems would not occur. I hope we
would continue on the path that we started, which was to
support enthusiastically public television.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman. The chairman recognizes
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fossella, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the question
I have is whether Elmo is a Democrat or Republican. The point
is, is that we shouldn't have to ask such questions. And again
I associate my comments with everyone who thanks the chairman
and be given the opportunity to air this issue out. But
frankly, in my view public broadcasting is a public trust. I
think what has happened is that trust has been breached and my
colleague Mr. Stearns said earlier I don't necessarily
empathize with what you have to do now to answer for some of
your affiliates but nevertheless the buck has to stop
somewhere. And it begs the question if Mr. Chairman Tauzin had
not delayed the markup last week to reauthorize the CPB and not
called for this hearing when we would have discovered this
information.
I think that begs the question as to who is doing the
oversight. Is there adequate oversight by the CPB, among
others? Does Congress have additional responsibility to
conduct, I think, the oversight which we are doing today? Who
knew about these practices and for how long? And whether there
were guidelines at these affiliates, whether in Boston or
California, and if there were such guidelines the people who
violated those guidelines, did the superiors know about them?
And are those people who violated those guidelines going to pay
the price in some way?
We can have the philosophical debate and I think it is
reasonable. I think there are those who say anybody who
criticizes public broadcasting is a puritan. In fact, it is in
someone's testimony here today. I disagree. I think you can
have reasonable people disagree on the future of public
broadcasting, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and its
relationship to what Congressman Erhlich just pointed out, the
plethora of options that the American consumer has when it
comes to television. So I wouldn't advise anybody to get roped
into that ideological sighting because folks here have genuine
and I think real concerns and beliefs as to public money to
subsidize entities that now we learn have gone to subsidize
political activities.
So, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for calling this and I
sincerely appreciate your desire to work with Mr. Markey and
the minority so that we can forge some kind of compromise but
at the same time highlight that this type of stuff when
taxpayer money is used can't and should not be tolerated.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentlelady, Mrs. Wilson, for an opening statement.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. As I
noted in our previous hearing on this subject, there is a
certain irony in my addressing this issue since for 17 years of
my adult life, I did not own a television and I still don't
have cable television nor do I allow my children to watch much
television. But there are quality programs on public
broadcasting as well as on commercial channels. There is no
question in my mind about that. But I think we are dealing with
a situation now where a handful of people have broken a public
trust or behaved inappropriately and there are consequences
both for those individuals or organizations who engage in
inappropriate behavior, but I think those supporters of public
broadcasting are also experiencing the fact it is a broader
consequence, and a sad one.
Mr. Chairman, what I would like to say specifically or what
I would like to address specifically is the challenge for the
West. I represent the State of New Mexico, part of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, and I am from New Mexico and many of these things
that are available on the East Coast or in America's urban
areas through satellite and cable and over the Internet are not
realities in rural New Mexico. What is a reality is that you
can get PBS because we have 300 translators serving rural New
Mexico. For those of you who have never had the privilege of
coming to the American West or to New Mexico, you have to
understand that 40 percent of Indian country, only 40 percent
of Indian country has basic telephone service.
This is a very rural State and when we talk about all of
the things that are available on cable and by satellite and all
of the emerging technologies, I want to make sure that rural
America is not left behind and I think at this point that is
one of the things that public broadcasting still offers within
the network of translators that are available.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady. Are there further
members who would like to make opening statements.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for your hard work on this important issue
and for holding this hearing this morning.
Today, the Subcommittee meets once again to discuss the structure
and funding of public broadcasting. As the Committee considers
legislation to authorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I
think it's important to provide a historical back-drop to this
dialogue.
Congress established the Corporation in 1967 to answer pleas for
better, and more family friendly informative video programming. At that
time, the three commercial television networks dominated the airwaves,
and the near universal conclusion at that time was that the networks
were building ``a vast wasteland of bland programming.''
Congress stepped in, and created CPB. The idea was that CPB would
provide ``seed money'' to those programmers who had a better vision for
American television.
It worked. In fact, it worked so well that it spawned a competitive
marketplace for similar programming. Hence, the development of
``Noggin' '' . . . and ``the History Channel'' . . . and ``Odyssey'' .
. . and countless other networks that are dedicated to the principle
that video programming can enrich the lives of American families.
Needless to say, times have certainly changed. Let me say that I
remain concerned about the coarseness of programming on broadcast
networks. However, I take solace in the fact that consumers today--
compared to 1967--have a wealth of additional options.
All of this suggests that, compared to 1967, the video programming
marketplace today is helping to fulfill the needs of American
consumers. The Subcommittee must not lose sight of this critical fact
as we move forward. We should be very frugal with American taxpayer
dollars in light of the fact that the marketplace is helping to serve
the needs of American consumers.
This is not to say that there is no role for federal funding here.
The marketplace still has yet to fill some critical gaps . . .
including those areas where consumers have no access to cable or
satellite. In those homes, public broadcasting is a critical link to
valuable information and entertainment. And Congress needs to ensure
that it will remain so.
But Congress also needs to be careful as it balances the interests
of taxpayers with the needs of unserved markets. Moreover, we should
have a plan in place for reducing over time the American taxpayers'
share of the burden.
Finally, with regard to recent evidence that particular public
broadcasters exchanged fund-raising lists with political parties. I
have sent letters to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the
Public Broadcasting Service and the Association of America's Public
Television Stations requesting all such records and information
relating to these alleged practices. I have asked these organizations
to report back to me by July 26 with this material. I look forward to
learning more about these practices before this Committee considers the
final authorization of additional funds for CPB in the years to come.
I once again thank the Subcommittee Chairman for his hard work in
this area, and I look forward to working with him as the process moves
forward.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is truly an honor to come before you
today to stress the importance of Reauthorizing the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB).
CPB provides funding to public broadcasting services that we dear
the most such as Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) and the National
Public Radio (NPR). PBS and NPR provide Americans with quality
programs.
Although, there has been some information regarding some individual
public television stations exchanging donor list with political
parties, we should not hold reauthorization of CPB hostage to isolated
incidents.
It is my understanding that officials from the CPB have condemned
this practice. I hope that in today's hearing we can get assurances
from Mr. Conrad that this activity of swapping donor list will end and
will not occur ever again in the future.
As we approach the new millennium, public television stations are
facing the challenge of making the transition to digital broadcasting
by the year 2003. This conversion is expected to cost $1.7 billion and
creates obstacles for non-profit public television stations who are in
dire need of funding.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of 1999
allocates $15 million for fiscal year 1999 and $100 million for each
fiscal year from 2000 until 2003 to aid in the transition. I strongly
support this legislation and I believe that any reduction in this
allocation will hinder public broadcasting stations from meeting its
deadline.
We must ensure that CPB is reauthorized at a level where it can
continue to survive in a commercially driven arena. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair would now recognize our first panel.
The first panel consists of Mr. Robert Coonrod, President and
CEO of Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB; Mr. Ervin
Duggan, President and CEO, Public Broadcasting Service, PBS;
and Mr. Kevin Klose, President and CEO, National Public Radio,
NPR. Your written statements are part of your record. We would
ask that you not recite them for us but rather engage us as
usual in a conversational way with the main points of your
discussion.
We will begin with Mr. Coonrod of the CPB. Mr. Coonrod, as
I introduced you, I would hope that you would immediately and
quickly address the question raised in the ``New York Times''
editorial this morning as to when did the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting find out about this incident in Boston or,
this incident, these incidents across America and why, if you
did not take any action, why didn't you.
Mr. Coonrod.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT T. COONROD, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING; ERVIN S. DUGGAN, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE; AND KEVIN KLOSE,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO
Mr. Coonrod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will address that
momentarily. But first I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing, for giving us an opportunity to
address this issue today. This is a difficult issue for all of
us and we share the sentiment that we have heard from the
committee members about the inappropriateness of some of the
activity that has been described here.
Over the decades, my predecessors and I have come here
several times to say, please help us in certain ways and we
have also had an opportunity from time to time to come back and
say thank you for the support that you have lent us.
Occasionally we have had to come here and say sorry, we blew it
and, well, Mr. Chairman, here is a case where clearly that is
what we have to do today. We have to say to you that we blew
it.
Now, my colleagues and I, when we learned of this last
week, issued a joint statement which I believe you have seen,
which said several things. It said that we do not condone this
kind of activity, that we will work as appropriate with the
Congress to see to it that it doesn't continue.
I would like to do two things this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address the point that you raised when you
introduced me and then I would like to provide some detail
about what we know as of today about the direct mail
activities.
The situation that was--that you addressed and was
addressed in the ``New York Times'' this morning has to do with
WGBH in Boston. In May, we learned from the ``Boston Globe''
that WGBH had made its mailing list available to the Democratic
National Committee. As we have heard several times during the
course of this hearing, making member or donor names available
to political parties is manifestly a bad practice. It is
something that public television and radio stations should--in
which they should not engage, and WGBH immediately recognized
that what it had done was wrong. It acknowledged that publicly.
It recognized--it stated that it was a violation of established
policies of WGBH, policies that had been in place since 1994.
It went beyond that. It wrote a letter of apology to its
members. It went on the air and said to its viewers and
listeners that they had done something that was wrong. They
informed the IRS of what they had done and they informed their
independent auditors. Those are all of the actions that WGBH
took at the time and all of those actions seemed entirely
appropriate.
As late as July 13, as late as last week, WGBH reaffirmed
that the situation was as it had described it in May. It was
only on Thursday morning that we learned that there was more to
the situation than what was in the--what had been publicly
disclosed at that point. But based on the information that was
available and based on the prompt, unequivocal action that WGBH
took, it seemed to us clear that they had dealt with the
situation appropriately.
That is my statement on that particular situation. I could
say in hindsight there are other things we might have looked at
but at the time it looked like the prompt, swift action,
unequivocal action that was taken was the appropriate action.
I would also like, Mr. Chairman, to talk a little bit about
some of the broader practices that we have been learning since
we have learned about this last Thursday.
The use of direct mail campaigns to raise money is a common
practice throughout the nonprofit world. In fact, Standard Rate
and Data Service, one of the country's leading sources of media
data, profiles 24,000 not-for-profit organizations that make
their lists available for trade or rental. During the past
week, CPB conducted phone and e-mail surveys of more than 75
stations. These are public television stations who indicated
that they have used direct mail or direct mail brokers to
solicit funds. This group represents less than 10 percent of
the radio and television stations in public broadcasting. But
this does represent the largest stations, the largest public
television stations.
To a point you made earlier this morning, Mr. Chairman, the
information that I am about to give you is not comprehensive
but it is accurate. It will take us some time to develop
comprehensive information and our inspector general will be
assisting in that process and we will be able to provide a
comprehensive report on the practices in the near future. But
based on what we know today, approximately 50 public television
stations, 50 of the 353 public television stations, that is
about 15 percent, exchange lists with other nonprofit
organizations. Almost all of them do that by the use of list
brokers or intermediaries. Now, 30 stations have rented lists
from political organizations. Fewer than 30 also appear to have
exchanged member lists with political entities of either or
both parties. By exchange we mean they have made their donor
names available in return. Of the four major list brokers who
do business with public broadcasting stations, three also do
business with political organizations, and all three do
business with both sides of the aisle. Two of the four have
policies which specifically prohibit the transfer, rental, or
exchange with political parties or candidates. So while they do
business with political parties, they prohibit exchange with
individual candidates.
As we have looked at this, Mr. Chairman, fund-raiser
effectiveness rather than partisan political purpose appears to
have been the primary motivation for stations renting or
exchanging lists because in addition to dealings with the
Democratic National Committee, which had been mentioned in the
past week's media coverage, our preliminary review indicates
that a number of Republican organizations, such as the 1996
Dole Campaign, the Conservative Republican Super File, the
Country Club Republicans, Golden Age Republicans, Republican
Party Builders, and Great American Donors have also exchanged
lists with public television stations.
But the bipartisan nature of this transaction begs the
larger ethical question that we have been discussing this
morning. Should public stations that receive Federal financial
support deal in this way with any political entity? And I think
the answer to that is unequivocal. I think that is the point
that my colleagues and I tried to make last week. We do not
condone this activity. We do not condone the buying, selling,
or trading of lists with partisan political campaigns or
committees.
Under the CPB procedures, the inspector general will--has
been informed of these reports, reports that we have and we
will cooperate fully with whatever factual review the inspector
general undertakes and we will cooperate with whatever
recommendations he makes.
Also last week, Mr. Chairman, I notified all station
licensees that in addition to existing certifications of
compliance that they have in order to get CPB funds, they will
now be required to certify that they are in compliance with all
applicable Federal laws and regulations specifically relating
to nonprofit organizations and partisan political activity. So
that will be a condition of funding from CPB in the future.
Going forward, Mr. Chairman, we would very much like to
work with this committee and with the Congress and as we have
identified it from the statements this morning, there seem to
be three broad areas where we have sort of common goals and
goals--and we would like to work in cooperation with you on
that. First is in the implementation of strict privacy
guidelines which would prevent unauthorized disclosure of names
of members of public radio and television stations. Second is a
prohibition on exchange of lists with political committees or
parties or institutions. And finally, support for some sort of
an independent review so that we can judge the full extent of
this and make specific recommendations as to reforms should
they be necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Robert T. Coonrod follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert T. Coonrod, President and Chief Executive
Officer, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
I welcome this opportunity to appear again before the Subcommittee
and to participate in today's discussion. I understand that Members of
the Subcommittee are concerned about recent press accounts of the
trading or renting of several public broadcasting station membership
lists with political organizations. With the Subcommittee's permission,
I would like to use my oral statement to address that issue in detail.
However, because I know the Subcommittee is asking questions as well
about the continuing relevance of public broadcasting in a cable and
direct broadcast satellite environment, I would like to use my brief
written statement to highlight, in particular, why the services and
programs public television provides are more important today than ever.
I could just as easily focus these comments on the great strides being
made by public radio, but will today address the issue of the relevance
of public television in relation to programming being produced for
distribution by cable and by commercial television networks.
American public broadcasting is not, and never has been, government
broadcasting. It is a quintessential grassroots enterprise, made up of
353 television and 694 radio stations, each of which is governed by its
own local board of directors. The federal appropriation accounts for
13.5 percent of public broadcasting's annual revenues. This translates
into an annual federal grant to public radio stations, television
stations, and a diverse variety of television and radio producers. The
federal grant is not only essential for their operations, it is a
crucial element of their identity and mission. Public broadcasting is,
in fact, one of the most successful public/private partnerships in
operation today. Each of our partners is important to the continued
health of this system, but the federal government is perhaps the most
important. The loss of any one partner jeopardizes the enterprise.
Recognizing your key role in making this enterprise possible, let
me address the variety of Americans for whom public broadcasting
remains relevant.
Public broadcasting is relevant to minorities. At a time when the
NAACP is threatening to sue commercial broadcasters about the lack of
African-American faces on commercial television, public broadcasters
are celebrating award winning programming by and about African-
Americans. I Must Keep Fighting: The Art of Paul Robeson; NPR coverage
of Africa; African's in America: America's Journey Through Slavery, and
When Good Men Do Nothing are just a few recent examples. Latinos, Asian
Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are also seeing and
hearing their faces and voices on public radio and television.
Public broadcasting is relevant to young people who are
increasingly confronted by violent images in a variety of media. Public
broadcasting is not only a safe haven from violent programming, it
promotes safe havens in a literal sense. On June 5, 1999, over 2,000
communities held ``safe night'' events. ``Safe night'' is an ongoing
annual national event designed to teach youth ways to avoid violence.
Public broadcasters are helping organize and promote the events. PBS
aired a live one-hour special, also shown on the Black Entertainment
Network (BET), that connected safe night events around the country.
Public broadcasting is relevant to individuals who cannot access
the many available cable or satellite channels, either for financial
reasons, due to remote location, or because not all channels or
services are available to them. More than 30 million homes, or an
estimated 90 million people, do not receive cable, either by choice or
because they cannot afford it. Essentially all Americans have access to
public broadcasting, delivered for free over the air.
Public broadcasting is also relevant to high school dropouts. More
than 2 million Americans have earned their high school diplomas through
GED programs offered by public television stations.
It is relevant to American teachers. In a survey conducted by Cable
in the Classroom last summer, PBS materials topped the field of
classroom choices, with 70 percent of teachers reporting they use video
materials from PBS in the classroom. The PBS Adult Learning Service
delivers distance-learning telecourses by satellite to two-thirds of
the nation's college campuses, where 360,000 students are enrolled in
these courses for college credit. The Annenberg/CPB Channel provides
free, detailed teacher training in math and science to anyone in the
country, free of charge. We are expanding this service to include
teacher training in English, History and Literature.
Finally, public broadcasting continues to be very relevant to the
youngest among us. Most of us already know that from observing the
viewing habits of our own children and grandchildren, nieces and
nephews, friends and neighbors.
Our programming consistently earns the respect of our professional
peers. Our educational contribution to children's viewing has been
validated over and over, and public opinion research repeatedly shows
that the American people appreciate the service we provide and consider
it a good use of taxpayers' money.
As I mentioned to this Subcommittee on June 30, programs airing on
PBS and NPR recently received 12 of 33 George Foster Peabody Awards for
Broadcast and Cable Excellence, out of nearly 1,300 entries. A few days
later, Fred Rogers, Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Arthur
all won daytime Emmys. Earlier this year, a CPB/National Asian American
Telecommunications Association-funded documentary Regret to Inform was
nominated for an Oscar.
Our children's programming is consistently singled out for its
excellence. Last month, in its 1999 State of Children's Television
Report, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
Pennsylvania noted that the number of programs airing for children has
risen (up 12 percent over the previous year), with the largest increase
on basic cable venues. Yet the report adds, ``Programs with clear and
salient lessons tend to appear most frequently on PBS' High-quality
programs are still most likely to appear on PBS stations and least
likely to air on broadcast weblet and independent stations.'' This is
simply further evidence of why American families regard public
broadcasting as a safe haven for children and a wise investment for
taxpayers. You will hear from Amy Jordan of the Annenberg Public Policy
Center later today about this study.
Taxpayers, too, value our programming and services. In a 1997 poll
by Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc., Americans rated public radio and
public television as the second and third best values in return for tax
dollars spent. Only national defense rated higher.
This outstanding record of programming and service will improve
exponentially when digital broadcasting becomes the new standard. By
2003, digital broadcasting will permit us to deliver more content in
exciting new ways that expand our educational depth and reach. Digital
will provide not only expanded capacity, but also the means to make a
television set function more like a computer. As I've said before, we
are extremely excited about this because the technology has finally
caught up with our mission. Eventually, digital technology and the new
media it will spawn are going to be an important and powerful new tool
for learning among all age levels, and at all economic levels.
We know that the American people value this institution. It is the
support and participation of the Congress that makes public
broadcasting ``public,'' and we look forward to continuing the
partnership for many decades to come. We believe public broadcasting is
poised to enter an era in which we will offer new services even more
effectively to more and more Americans.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Coonrod. There will be lots of
questions, I am sure. Mr. Ervin Duggan, President and CEO of
PBS. Mr. Duggan.
STATEMENT OF ERVIN S. DUGGAN
Mr. Duggan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Markey, members of
the subcommittee. Good afternoon. Nothing is more
disheartening, Mr. Chairman, for people who try to be people of
integrity, who try to act prudently than to find that we have
been involved in something inappropriate, embarrassing, and
downright stupid. We at PBS care deeply about maintaining the
trust of the American people. Like you, therefore, we are
deeply concerned about the events that have given rise to this
hearing. We believe emphatically that any conduct having even
the appearance of partisan political activity by a public
broadcast station or public broadcaster cannot be condoned.
The stations involved have underscored that these list
exchanges that took place are standard among nonprofits, that
this activity occurred mostly by third party list brokers, that
their conduct was focused on fund raising and not on partisan
politics. No matter about that. It is inappropriate and wrong
for it to happen and so that is why PBS together with CPB, the
National Public Radio, and America's public television stations
issued a statement last week underscoring our position that
such practices simply cannot be condoned.
Many stations do have policies against such practices.
Clearly, however, these policies need better auditing. They
need strong enforcement, and they need to be universal. We need
to have a universal ethic throughout our system. Fortunately,
our stations are now acutely aware of this issue and they are
taking steps even as we meet to address it quickly and
forthrightly.
In light of these recent developments, PBS' development
office and our development advisory committee made up of
station leaders in the development field are issuing an
advisory this week strongly urging our member stations to
establish policies strictly prohibiting the exchange or rental
of lists to partisan political campaigns, committees, or
groups.
I would like to echo what my colleague Bob Coonrod has just
said, that we are very much in favor, as members of the
committee are in favor, of strict privacy policies that prevent
unauthorized use of member or donor names, of an absolute
prohibition against the partisan use of lists or names, and I
personally am very much attracted to Congressman Stearns'
suggestion of a distinguished group who could do a review of
current practices and make strong recommendations about what
the ethics should be. We of course will be leading an effort of
that sort within our enterprise, but I think it would help
restore trust to have the kind of independent review that
Congressman Stearns spoke of.
As you know from my hearing in June, Mr. Chairman, we in
public broadcasting have many ideas for using the new digital
technology for education, for culture, for citizenship, and we
believe we can do things that our brothers and sisters in the
commercial world simply cannot do because they are necessarily
driven by the need to return--to serve advertisers and to give
returns to shareholders and that creates certain obligations
for them that we are free of and we can innovate and do things
for nonprofit educational and cultural purposes that they
cannot do.
As the subcommittee moves forward, therefore, we hope that
you will find ways to address this unfortunate situation
without damaging the constructive contributions to American
life that public broadcasting makes. As Mr. Markey pointed out
earlier, the forced commercialization of this enterprise would
deepen the problems that we are talking about here today. It
would not solve them.
Public broadcasting can be seen as a kind of electronic
analogue of the public library, and I think most of us would
accept it as a terrible suggestion to turn the public libraries
of the Nation into book stores and to say people can buy books
and so we don't need public libraries. We are the electronic
public library of the air. We serve that same educational
purpose and I hope we can prove to the American people day in
and day out that we deserve their support and that we deserve
your support. We welcome the opportunity to work with you and
members of the committee in any way to address this latest
issue appropriately, effectively, and constructively.
[The prepared statement of Ervin S. Duggan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ervin S. Duggan, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Public Broadcasting Service
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Ervin Duggan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Public
Broadcasting Service. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in
this hearing.
Because PBS cares about maintaining the trust of the American
people, we are deeply concerned about the events that occasion this
hearing. We believe emphatically that any conduct having even the
appearance of partisan political activity by a public broadcaster
cannot be condoned.
The stations involved have underscored that list exchanges are
standard among nonprofits and that their conduct was focused on
fundraising, not politics. Nevertheless, PBS, together with CPB, NPR
and American's Public Television Stations, issued a joint statement
last week underscoring our position that such practices are not to be
condoned.
Many stations do have policies against such practices. Clearly,
however, these policies need better auditing and enforcement
mechanisms--and they need to be universal. Fortunately, our stations
are now acutely aware of this issue and are taking steps to address it
quickly and forthrightly.
In light of these recent developments, PBS's development office
and our Development Advisory Committee are issuing an advisory this
week strongly urging our member stations to establish policies strictly
prohibiting the exchange or rental of lists to partisan political
campaigns, committees or groups.
As you know from our hearing in June, we have many ideas for using
digital technology for education, culture and citizenship. As the
subcommittee moves forward, therefore, we hope that you will find ways
to address this issue without damaging the essential and constructive
contributions that public broadcasting makes to American life. We
welcome the opportunity to work with you in any way to address this
issue appropriately, effectively and constructively.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Duggan. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Kevin Klose, President and CEO of NPR.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN KLOSE
Mr. Klose. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to address you this
afternoon. I have been President of NPR since December 1998 and
to echo one of honorable members earlier today, I would also
never have guessed that this was going on with regard to what
has occurred with the lists.
Distinctly NPR is a coalition of autonomous local stations,
each with its own community of listeners. They are licensed to
a variety of nonprofit organizations, community foundations,
colleges, universities and other community institutions. The
majority are licensed to universities. Our board of directors
is drawn principally from managers of those stations. Ten of
our 17 board members are elected by the membership, which
includes almost 300 individual stations. Ten of the board
members are station managers. They run for election and the
bylaws are subject to the vote of our membership.
With regard to our policy and practice regarding donor
lists since 1983, there has been a prohibition at NPR
prohibiting NPR from soliciting the public directly. This
direct solicitation prerogative is left to member stations.
Over the years NPR has shared names with member stations,
chiefly listeners who have requested tapes or transcripts from
us from member stations' broadcast areas. Recently we have
proposed to member stations that we would provide them names of
listeners in their communities who request tapes and
transcripts only with prior permission of the listeners. It is
our intention to establish very careful guidelines for this
service to local stations that would bar the sharing of such
information with any partisan organization.
The NPR Board of Directors will meet this week in its
previously scheduled July meeting and this issue and related
issues obviously will be a topic of discussion and deliberation
by the board and we will review the efficacy of our own
guidelines and procedures and we hope to be able through that
discussion and through working with our member stations to be
sure that we are a model for our member stations and for these
kinds of issues with regard to both the privacy of our citizens
and the privacy of those who make donations and support NPR and
our programs.
Further, as you know, I have signed a statement, joined
with my colleagues in the national organizations, stating very
clearly I do not condone what happened and as the President and
CEO of NPR, my management will work as appropriate with the
committee and in the membership framework and the framework of
our board of directors to achieve both clarity on this issue
and assurances in the future that the issues of privacy and of
great fire walls that have supported the integrity and
credibility of NPR, its member stations and our programming
together stays in place and the strength and in the future.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Kevin Klos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Klose, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Public Radio
Chairman Tauzin, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to speak before you today and providing me with the
opportunity to talk about National Public Radio, and its relationship
with its member stations as well as the public.
NPR is a private, non-profit company, which serves two primary
roles. One, NPR produces and distributes high quality noncommercial,
educational, informational and cultural programming to its member
stations, who in turn broadcast that programming to listeners in local
communities across the country.
Two, NPR is also a membership organization, representing just over
600 noncommercial educational radio stations throughout the United
States. In this capacity, we offer member stations such services as
legislative and regulatory representation, program promotion and
training. NPR is not a radio station nor does it own radio stations.
NPR stations are independent and autonomous, reflective of their
local communities. They are licensed to a variety of non-profit
organizations, communities, colleges, universities and other
institutions. The majority of NPR member stations are licensed to
educational institutions.
Member station dues and program purchases account for two thirds of
NPR's annual budget ($75 million in FY 1999). On average, NPR receives
2 to 4% of its total budget from federal sources, including competitive
grants awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the
National Science Foundation, and the National Endowments for the Arts
and Humanities.
Let me explain what NPR's policy and practice is regarding donor
lists and exchanges. Since 1983 NPR has had a board policy prohibiting
NPR from soliciting the public directly--on-air fund-raising, direct
mail and telephone solicitations remain an exclusive prerogative of
local stations.
Over the years NPR has shared names with member stations--chiefly
listeners who have requested tapes or transcripts. Recently NPR
informed its member stations only that we would provide them the names
of listeners in their communities who request tapes and transcripts.
Before the names are provided there will be provisions in place to
assure that no such information will be shared with any partisan
political campaign or organization.
We are guided in this and other interactions with stations by the
knowledge that our NPR stations are rooted in local communities and
responsive to the needs of those who live there. The most recent
information indicates listener contributions account for 29 percent of
public radio stations' revenue, the largest single category of funding.
The trust and commitment to our listeners that have developed over the
past 25 years are the foundation of this remarkable broadcasting
endeavor. Therefore, maintaining that trust is crucial to allowing
public radio to continue to provide the programming and services upon
which listeners have come to depend. We will continue to work together
with our members to ensure that we are worthy of the public's trust.
Public radio is most grateful for your continuing support. I look
forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the witnesses and will
recognize himself for a round of questions and other members as
appropriately.
Mr. Coonrod, when this news broke to this subcommittee, we
were in the middle of a discussion, as Mr. Cox pointed out, of
privacy on the Internet. And this committee and members of the
public who were testifying were decrying those bad players out
there who were still sharing private information about citizens
to others for commercial purpose or otherwise without their
permission. We learned in the middle of that hearing, someone
brought us that report from Boston, that one of our public
television stations had done the same thing and even worse, had
shared that information with one of the national political
parties.
The ``Washington Post'' today tells us that it looks like
about three dozen stations may have used these list brokers.
You tell us today the number is now 50.
Mr. Coonrod. As of last night 53 stations.
Mr. Tauzin. How many, sir?
Mr. Coonrod. 53. We surveyed 75 stations and of those top
75 stations, 53 have used list brokers.
Mr. Tauzin. When will we have a final report indicating how
many total stations have engaged in this practice?
Mr. Coonrod. We are working now to come up with a
questionnaire that we can in some organized way solicit this
information from all the grantees, but it will take a couple of
weeks before we can compile all the information to be sure that
it is accurate and comprehensive.
Mr. Tauzin. Is that number likely to grow?
Mr. Coonrod. The number is likely to grow, Mr. Chairman,
but from what we have determined, only stations of a certain
size tend to use list brokers so the smaller stations are
unlikely to have been exchanging lists with other
organizations.
Mr. Tauzin. Directly with organizations. Let's talk about
that for a second. We know in Boston that a public broadcast
station traded names directly with the National Democratic
Party. Is that correct?
Mr. Coonrod. That is what has been reported----
Mr. Tauzin. No list brokers. This activity lasted since
1994.
Mr. Coonrod. The Boston station, WGBH, asserted that it was
done through a list broker.
Mr. Tauzin. They say it was a list broker as well.
Mr. Coonrod. That is what they say. WGBH asserts that it
had no direct contact with the Democratic National Committee.
Mr. Tauzin. We will be happy to learn what is correct
because the reports we have is that it was direct contact.
Mr. Coonrod. I understand that. I am just being clear, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Do we have any other reports of direct contact
between any public broadcast radio television station and one
of the political parties in this country?
Mr. Coonrod. No, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. As far as you know it was all done through list
brokers as of this moment?
Mr. Coonrod. As of today.
Mr. Tauzin. But we don't know. Here is one of the problems
I have with your testimony today, Mr. Coonrod. You acknowledge
that in May the station issued a public apology after the story
came out in which the station said it was just new employees
doing this and it was just a single mistake. The station
obviously issued a public apology to the citizens in that
community which was a lie, which basically said we are sorry
for doing one thing when in fact we did something quite
different. They engaged in a practice that lasted over a long
period of time and apparently with the consent of the
management of the station; is that correct?
Mr. Coonrod. I can't speak to the consent of the management
of the station but apparently it lasted over a long period of
time, yes.
Mr. Tauzin. In any event the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting made no inquiries? Did not call the managers in
and talk with them? Did not visit the station and find out what
was really going on? Did not ask the hard questions that the
newspapers eventually asked that produced the correct answers?
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Chairman, we spoke with the station and
both--the rapidness of the response and the definiteness of the
response caused us to believe, incorrectly, but caused us to
believe that the information that WGBH was providing publicly
was in fact the truth.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Coonrod, if you believed it was the truth,
did you not feel an obligation to contact every public
broadcast station immediately and advise them that you had
found out this had happened in Boston and then determine
whether or not any such practice was being engaged in anywhere
else in America?
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Chairman, exchanging membership lists with
political parties is such a manifestly stupid thing to do, it
never occurred to me that people would be doing it.
Mr. Tauzin. But you found out they were in Boston. You saw
no need to check whether other public stations were doing it.
Mr. Coonrod. We found out, Mr. Chairman, they had done it
and as soon as it was made public, they publicly disavowed it.
They themselves admitted it was a stupid thing to do. They said
it was a violation of their own internal policies. They
informed the IRS. In hindsight, I wish we had done something
different but at the time, it seemed like they were--they had
come entirely clean.
Mr. Tauzin. My time has expired. I want to lay one thing on
you before I pass it on to all of you. If any broadcast station
in America has announced publicly to the citizens of this
country that our policy is to take your names and the names of
your children and your private information and trade it off
with other individuals in this country either for profit or for
whatever other reason and specifically to trade it off with
political parties in this country for their use in soliciting
you for money. If any station had announced that that was going
to be its policy, do you think for a second there wouldn't have
been a public outcry against it? Do you think that station
could have done it in the face of public opinion had they
announced they were doing it? And do you think for a second
that that activity ought ever have to occur in this country
with public broadcasting?
Mr. Coonrod. It ought not to occur.
Mr. Tauzin. And finally, do you agree with me because it
has occurred and because we don't even know the extent to which
it has occurred yet, that the damage done to the integrity of
the relationship between the American public and what they came
to--come to expect from public broadcasting is severe, it is
going to take some real time to heal?
Mr. Coonrod. We believe it is severe, Mr. Chairman. Our
relationship, our effectiveness is built on the trust that we
built up with the American people over the years and events
like this erode that trust. That is true and we have to work in
every way we can to dig ourselves out of this hole.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Again, I want to begin by restating that 35 percent of the
children in the United States live in homes without cable. We
are talking about broadcast here. We are talking about free.
And that is why it is so important. We have to remember that
this is part of our commitment to universal service of all
Americans. People wouldn't have to pay in order to gain access
to quality programming.
I agree with what the gentleman from Louisiana was just
saying about how offended people justifiably are when they
discover that their names, which they felt were going to be
kept confidential, are sold for corporate gain, even if it is
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the public
broadcasting stations. But you could substitute banks, HMOs,
insurance companies, in terms of how offended every American
would be if they found out that their names were being sold as
they were conducting business with their local bank, with their
local HMO. The exact same reaction.
I only say this because at least at WGBH they had an opt
out provision. Of the 200,000 contributors, 40,000 had opted
out. Now, I can understand where many others would probably
feel there should be an opt in, that you should be--unless they
get your explicit permission but generally speaking, this is
part of a larger discussion we are starting to have in America
this year about privacy in this modern era. And I do believe
that every subscriber should be entitled to that ability.
Let me also say that WGBH yesterday sent a letter to the
chairman and to the ranking member and all the members of the
committee in which it said this in one paragraph in a longer
letter. First I want to report to you--this letter comes from
Henry Beckton, the President of WGBH--first I want to report to
you that the actions taken by WGBH staff were errors in
business judgment and not partisan political acts. We are aware
of no contact between WGBH and the Democratic National
Committee. All of our mailing list activity is handled by
commercial list brokers. These are separate companies. We have
a policy prohibiting the exchange of WGBH donor lists with
political organizations which we put in place in 1994. I
officially believe that such activity should not occur and
deeply regret that the policy was not adequately enforced by
our staff.
So there is no evidence of direct connection, although
these list brokers run their own world out there and they try
to make money doing it. There wasn't proper supervision. We are
going to have to, I think, just prohibit the practice, but I
don't think that there is any real indication that the PBS
stations were out there trying to engage in direct contact with
any partisan organization.
Now, everyone agrees that sharing these lists is
inappropriate. The question is where do we go from here? That
is, to go further and to punish the system with funding cuts
would put pressure on the system to become more commercial in
its operation and in its personality. Commercial public
broadcasting is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp. Carnivorous
vegetarian. There is no such thing as commercial public
broadcasting. The key here is to ensure that we maintain the
integrity, the special identity which the Public Broadcasting
System has been able to establish over the last generation.
I think that preserving public TV by enhancing its
commercial character is like trying to save a church by renting
billboard space on the steeple. You just can't do it and retain
that which is essential in terms of its character. So I ask
then whether or not at the end of the day--again I am just
going to ask you to restate briefly if you could, Mr. Duggan,
the impact that additional pressure on you to go out to find
more money from commercial sources would have upon the identity
of the Public Broadcasting System.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. The witnesses
will be allowed to respond.
Mr. Duggan. Thank you, Mr. Markey. I think we need deep
understanding of this buzzword ``privatization'' because it has
no other meaning that I can discern except commercialization.
The world is filled with commercial channels. They have no
mission to schools as we have a special instructional mission
to schools. They have no satellite broadcast of distance
learning to two-thirds of the campuses in the United States
which we do as a nonprofit public service. They have none of
these nonprofit cultural obligations as missions that we
perform so we could probably succeed as a commercial network.
That would be an option that would be open to us. But we would
then be making our program choices to serve advertisers and to
generate ratings, and the Metropolitan Opera would go.
Educational programming for children that is driven by the
curriculum by teaching letters and numbers would go out the
window, I think, for action adventure, things that would drive
ratings up and serve advertisers.
As you say, the entire character, the entire personality,
the entire mission would change. We would have to shut down
those nonprofitable things like the satellite service,
instructional service to schools and universities. It simply
wouldn't exist. So the forced commercialization of public
television would be like the forced commercialization of the
public library, turning it into a bookstore. Yes, people would
come and buy books but you wouldn't have the public library
anymore. And a 30-year effort to build a noncommercial,
nonprofit, culturally oriented public service to the American
people would be lost forever.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Oxley is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend from
Massachusetts indicated apparently there was no evidence of
direct connection between the public station in Boston and the
Democratic National Committee. Let me quote from a recent
article, ``There are some people who want to exploit this for
their own political agenda. That to me is a scandal, said Alan
D. Solomon, a former finance chairman of the Democratic
Committee and a board member of WGBH TV.'' Going on to quote
Mr. Solomon, ``This is not about politics. This is not about
scandal, Solomon said last night. It is about direct mail fund-
raising. People in the direct mail business buy and sell lists
every day. That is what they do. So they go out and they ask
people if they want to contribute. Museums do it, hospitals do
it, and public television stations do it. Barbara Boxer does
direct mail, too.''
That doesn't sound particularly apologetic, given the
statements from the witness table. Mr. Coonrod, the CPB is
receiving $250 million in appropriations for this fiscal year;
is that correct?
Mr. Coonrod. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Oxley. Yet the authorization for fiscal year 2002 for
CPB, not including the additional funding for digital
conversion, comes to $475 million under H.R. 2384 which,
according to my figures, would represent 190 percent increase;
is that correct?
Mr. Coonrod. Well, we are comparing appropriation and
authorization. The most recent authorization bill which was--
which expired in 1996 authorized the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting at $460 million, I believe. I am speaking from
memory but I think that is the correct number. So what we are
talking about in authorization terms is an increase of $15
million over the 1996 authorization level. I am sorry, 425, so
we are talking $50 million.
Mr. Oxley. I am talking authorization. We are after all the
authorizing committee. So basically it does represent 190
percent increase in your request. Why did the CPB----
Mr. Coonrod. No, excuse me, sir. It--the authorization--the
most recent authorization for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting was in 1996. That is when the authorization
expired. That authorization was $425 million. So it represents
a $50 million increase in authorization over the last--the most
recently authorized level, which was in 1996.
Mr. Oxley. Why was that increase asked for?
Mr. Coonrod. The current increase?
Mr. Oxley. Yes.
Mr. Coonrod. The current increase was asked for for several
reasons. First of all, we are what you might describe as the
trough, the bottom of the trough for funding of public
broadcasting. We are $250 million. It was $250 million
previously and there had been a decline. We are looking to
restore our funding to a level that was consonant to the level
of funding for public broadcasting that it enjoyed in the early
1990's and so that is--I could describe to you the elements in
the request.
The station operations, there are two parts to that
primarily but one is the preparation for the transition to
digital, the additional cost the station will have to incur for
dual operations. During the transition period, Mr. Oxley,
stations will have to maintain both their analog transmitters
and their digital transmitters so they will be incurring
significant additional costs.
In addition, we are encouraging stations and PBS and others
to begin to take advantage of the digital technology and the
primary way to take advantage of that digital technology is to
produce programs for both the multicast and the enhanced
television capabilities that digital allows. At the hearing on
June 28, we saw a brilliant demonstration of a Ken Burns
documentary and the enhancements that were possible through
digital television. So the increased, the increase request was
so that we could provide additional programming in addition to
the operational funding, so that we could provide additional
program funding so programs of that quality could be made
available once digital became a reality.
Mr. Oxley. One final question. The request for $100 million
for the transition to digital was five times what the
administration requested; is that correct?
Mr. Coonrod. I believe that is correct. I believe that is--
yes.
Mr. Oxley. So we are faced with a situation of looking at
$100 million authorization for the transition as opposed to $20
million as requested by----
Mr. Coonrod. But there is an important distinction between
what the administration requested and what was in the
authorization bill. What the administration requested was the
ability for money sufficient so that a station could pass
through a signal that was essentially delivered. In other
words, a signal from PBS, what we are trying to achieve here,
Mr. Oxley, is the ability of local stations to provide local
service in their communities. That requires local stations to
have a greater capability than simply the pass-through
capability and that additional money was earmarked primarily
for that purpose and also for the ability to purchase
production equipment as well which was not in the
administration's request.
Mr. Oxley. Yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of our
colleague Mr. Cox's comments on privacy, I would like to ask
Mr. Duggan about the privacy policies of the affiliates. What I
would like to point out to members is the case of KQED, which
is the public station in the Bay Area located in San Francisco,
and how they have a policy, because I asked them what their
policy was and they sent this. In fact, I may just ask for
unanimous consent to place this in the record because it does
demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, what goes out to members of KQED and
they can check off no exchange, no appeals, no telemarketing.
So this is an opting out as it were provision and I think that
that might be important for members to know.
Is this national policy for all PBS affiliates and if not,
do you think that it should be?
Mr. Duggan. Ms. Eshoo, I think it is important for members
of the committee and the public to understand the local
ownership and control of PBS and its member stations. Other
television networks are governed and run from New York and
California. They are owned by global conglomerates. That is not
the case in public television. Each station is locally owned
and governed by a local board. It is a local community
institution. They in turn own PBS. We don't even call ourselves
a network because we are so radically different. The stations
tell me what to do. I don't tell them what to do. They pay my
salary. I don't pay their salary.
Ms. Eshoo. At this juncture because of what has happened, I
would think you are all in it together.
Mr. Duggan. We are and while I am sure that local stations
have a widely differing patch work, policies having to do with
privacy and with lists, we have, as I said in my opening
statement, issued an advisory to our stations today or this
week saying that we believe they should institute strong
privacy policies and that they should have an absolute
prohibition on the partisan use and that we need to explore the
standards that we all have in fund-raising. That may have to do
with fund-raising programming as well as direct mail practices.
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentlelady yield for a moment.
Ms. Eshoo. I wanted to raise the point about our hearing. I
would be glad to yield.
Mr. Tauzin. There is no need. The gentlelady will proceed.
Ms. Eshoo. Were we thinking of the same thing? No? The
point that I want to make here is that just a week or 10 days
ago this committee had a hearing that the chairman had called
on electronic commerce and how consumers, business to consumers
and business to business, that is conducted over the net is
handled and while the chairman of the FTC and others said that
the best policy would be for companies to step forward and
adopt a policy that was based on volunteerism, I think in this
case that we are beyond the volunteerism.
You described something that is not even--you don't call it
a network but they are community boards. They come up with
their own decisions. This has now become a national case so I
don't think we can afford to have a patchwork quilt of where
one community board says one thing and another community board
says another. In Federal Government, I think if that were what
came out of public broadcasting nationally, the Congress is
going to step in and say, no, can't do this anymore.
There are, as my dear friend and colleague seated to my
right here, Tom Sawyer, said to me some time ago, and I have
quoted him many, many times, that there are few words in our
Constitution that has saved more bloodshed in this country and
that is the separation of church and state. And I think that we
sometimes seem to take that for granted. As my father said to
me 1 day, what's wrong with starting the day out with a little
our Father and hail Mary. For my dad, that was all right. For
the next person, it is not going to be. And I want to draw the
parallel to political organizations, politics and nonprofits
and public broadcasting. There has to be a very bright line
drawn between them. It is not all right. It is not okay. In
fact, it blurs the vision and it diminishes the confidence that
the American people really should have in the system that is so
brilliant otherwise.
So I hope that what I am hearing you say--well, I think the
Congress is going to step in. I don't think you are going to
have the opportunity to say, well, board by board, community by
community because this really flies in the face of what we
should be doing. So do any of you have any idea how much money
was actually raised by the respective stations, income from the
lists?
Mr. Tauzin. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman will be allowed to respond.
Mr. Duggan. Ms. Eshoo, on the first part you suggested, I
think you are very likely to see a quickly developed response
on the part of all public television stations to deal with this
issue and that a national response will be forthcoming. I think
this issue has galvanized our system. I think the embarrassment
of the behavior that has come to light of a few stations has
been embarrassing to the entire system and I think you will see
the response that you call for. With respect to the amount of
money raised in this list sharing, I don't know that any
estimate has been made or whether anyone has an answer. I do
not.
Mr. Coonrod. We have not been able at this point to come up
with a reliable estimate. We know the number is not large. I
wouldn't want to speculate at this point.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. Can we ask that that be made
available to the committee when you have it.
Mr. Coonrod. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection. The Chair will recognize one
more of our members for a round of questions. Then we will have
a recess for this 15-minute vote I think and come back right
after the vote. Before I do, for the record the Chair wants to
acknowledge that the authorization bill that was considered and
would be considered in this committee started with a 12 percent
increase in the level of authorization over the 1996 level, not
190 percent as someone had said.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stearns for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duggan, my
questions are pretty much directed to you. In your opening
statement which we heard, I think the staff and members are
trying to understand that you have issued letters but are you
going to perform a conductive, retroactive search so to speak
to uncover all paths, lists, exchanges by stations with
partisan groups? More specifically, do you plan to discover all
past incidents of list swapping?
Mr. Duggan. Mr. Stearns, I believe that the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, which has public interest oversight
through its inspector general, is engaging in a search of that
sort and we are cooperating fully in providing information to
CPB, but if the purpose is to do that kind of inventory and for
you to hear me express my support for such a search, yes,
indeed, we want to do everything possible to uncover all
activity of this sort.
Mr. Stearns. When do you think that information would be
completed? Is this a question for Mr. Coonrod or yourself? It
seems like since you are, so to speak, at the top here,
shouldn't you be the pile driver here?
Mr. Duggan. Well, I am more of a pile driven by my member
stations, Congressman. I am the employee of the member stations
and I do not generally crack the whip as a network president
would do. We are a membership association. But I believe that
the result you seek is going to be forthcoming and I do want to
invite Mr. Coonrod to speak on this because we are working
together to get that information.
Mr. Coonrod. Mr. Stearns, we are working to get that
information. Our inspector general, the CPB inspector general,
is conducting an independent survey. He will survey all of the
stations and will attempt to assert some basic information so
we can have a kind of data base of practices at all stations,
all 700 or so licensees that receive CPB grants. But as we have
learned, given the nature of list swapping through--or list
exchanges through list brokers, it may be very difficult to
track down all of the transactions that took place in the past.
Certainly going forward we can guarantee that we could be--make
available reports that indicate all of the transactions that
take place going forward, all of the trades or rentals that
take place but I cannot give you absolute assurance that we can
reconstruct----
Mr. Stearns. So you don't keep track of the list swapping
in the past?
Mr. Coonrod. Individual stations have kept track of that.
Station records may not be complete. Now, if they are complete,
then we can provide that information. If they are not----
Mr. Stearns. When these lists were swapped, did you receive
payment for this and what did you receive in return?
Mr. Coonrod. I guess--let me take a step back. We--the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting has not itself engaged in
any of these activities.
Mr. Stearns. I know. But each station, when each station
did it, did they get money or what did they get in return?
Mr. Coonrod. When a station rents a list, it gets money.
Mr. Stearns. Cash? Does it get actually cash that you
deposit in your station's account? That is the question.
Mr. Coonrod. When it rents a list, it pays money, but when
it receives--when it makes its list available, it gets cash.
Mr. Stearns. When it gives the list from the station to the
political party to Handgun Controls, Zero Population, or
Planned Parenthood, does Planned Parenthood give you money and
you deposit it in the station's account?
Mr. Coonrod. Yes. If what happens is the list is--the names
of the station donors, the station members are provided to the
other organization, then it can either be cash or it can be an
in kind. Often, almost always it is an in kind.
Mr. Stearns. Wouldn't you keep track of all that? For
example, with WGBH, there was a refinancial payment. I am just
saying when you say you can't go back it seems to me you can
because there has got to be some written, at least some
annotation that you got something for something, particularly
if it is money, it is a deposit, and isn't this reportable?
Mr. Coonrod. To be clear we can go back. What I am saying
to you, given the fact that there are over 700 licensees who
are involved here, I cannot guarantee at this point that each
of them has records that are complete and verifiable. That is--
those that have engaged in--used the benefits, the services of
a list broker, the brokers keep a record of this and that is--
--
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the committee to
have an outside source look at this because I think in all
deference to the organization, if they look at it, you know how
these things go. So I think we need somebody outside because
once this quid pro quo is made, it is reportable if it is cash,
even in kind.
So, I mean, for them to say that they can't go back, it is
difficult and I think begs the question and I urge the
committee to try and find some way to get an outside source to
do this.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
can respond.
Mr. Duggan. Mr. Stearns, I believe you were out of the room
when I spoke earlier, but I said we are very much attracted to
the idea that you expressed for an independent review. We are
going to do everything we can internally to get to the bottom
of this and to effect the kind of change that needs to be
effected. But we care so much about the trust of the American
people that we also think an independent review perhaps by a
distinguished citizen or citizens who could look into this and
advise what went on and make recommendations would add to the
credibility of our efforts and so we would invite a process
where we could explore that with you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
I would point out in the Boston situation, Boston's
information was corrected only because the National Democratic
Party issued information indicating that they had engaged in
using these names at an earlier date. Absent that, perhaps no
one would have known. An independent review may well be called
for.
The Chair would declare a recess until after this vote.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Tauzin. How does that translate to your statement? In
other words, the statement that you have made is that that is a
practice which we do not condone.
Mr. Coonrod. That was Mr. Duggan's statement.
Mr. Duggan. I would be happy to answer. And I do not imply
that we are powerless here, because I see my role as a leader
of the system. Even though I am an employee of the stations, I
am quite candid with them about what I believe to be right and
wrong.
I simply wanted to explain to Mrs. Eshoo that we did not
work like other networks. We are not powerless to market. We
have already said in no uncertain terms that we thought this
was a terrible practice.
Mrs. Cubin. And if you do it?
Mr. Duggan. I think we should use the sunlight of scrutiny
and the power of our leadership to convince this system that a
reform is necessary in these practices, where it exists. And I
believe that sunlight of scrutiny has already been effective.
Congressman Cox asked a minute ago about the sanctions that
could be put in place. I don't think there are any sanctions
that could be more serious than the scrutiny and embarrassment
that has already occurred from these behaviors. And I will do
anything in my power to ensure that these practices end and
that we restore the trust of the American people.
Mrs. Cubin. There is a law that does apply, law and rules
and reg that does apply to all of the stations, and that is the
Internal Revenue Service Code and their status as a tax-exempt
organization. And according to the Democrat National Committee
counsel, Joe Sandler, this is a quote: The IRS rules are clear
that a nonprofit organization can rent or exchange its list
with a political organization as long as it treats all
political organizations equally.
Now, I wonder, this is about WETA here in Washington, that
they have traded names with the DNC, and the Patriotic
Veterans, and the Great American Republicans. Now, I have been
a Republican all my life. I have been involved in political
activities all my life. I have never heard of the Patriotic
Americans and the Great American Republicans, and I have no
idea if they are Republicans, conservative, libertarians,
Democrats. I have no idea what they are. I wonder if the
station knows what they are, and if there shouldn't be some
requirement that they found out. And, of course, this is in the
purview of the Internal Revenue Service. But would you think
exchanging the list with the Democrat National Committee and
the Patriotic Veterans and the Great American Republicans would
be treating all political organizations equally?
Mr. Duggan. Ms. Cubin, even if exchanging that list is
legal, it is stupid. It is imprudent. It is wrong.
Mrs. Cubin. I agree.
Mr. Duggan. We are different from other nonprofit
organizations. And I emphatically disagree with that spokesman
from the Democratic Committee who would imply that just because
it is legal for nonprofits to do this, it was all right for a
public television station to do it. We have a special
relationship that is based on trust and credibility. And just
doing what is legal--I wouldn't want my children to do
everything they were legally permitted to do.
Mrs. Cubin. Then would you think it was appropriate for the
Internal Revenue Service to look further into whether or not
violations based on the impartiality of the treatment of
political organizations comes to play?
Mr. Duggan. Well, I don't give advice to the Internal
Revenue Service. I think if the Internal Revenue Service has a
serious issue and feels that the law may have been broken, then
if they feel an obligation to look into it, they would. But I
don't want to be in a position of commenting on that because I
don't know the law. I am not a lawyer.
My concern is that no station should do something, just as
no individual should do something, just because they have a
right to do it. There are all sorts of things that we as
Americans have rights to do that are not right to do. I would
rather have my children pledge allegiance to the flag in school
than burn the flag in school, though they may have a right to
do it. And I think falling back on what is legal and what we
have some sort of legal right to do misses the whole point of
restoring trust and maintaining trust and deserving trust with
the American people. And that means being prudent and showing
good judgment and staying within the ambit of what is legal.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mrs. Cubin. Just one quick question, yes or no?
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection.
Mrs. Cubin. The CPB is certainly exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act. Would any of you oppose an amendment being
added to the authorization bill that would subject CPB to the
Freedom of Information Act?
Mr. Coonrod. Currently, we use policies that are consistent
with the Freedom of Information Act, so if we were required to
do that, we wouldn't change our policies in any way.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Fossella. I apologize if the question has been asked
and answered already, but we sort of run all over the place
around here. But it was raised earlier regarding the policies,
the auditing, I think Mr. Duggan focused on this, the auditing
and the enforcement and the universality of the policies. But I
don't know if I have heard what that specific policy is and
what the consequences of violating that policy is. I have heard
you are going to look at it. I don't question the faith in
which you make that statement. And I am just curious as to if
you decide today that someone or some group of people have
violated a policy established in one of the affiliates, what is
the consequence?
Mr. Coonrod. Let me try that. Stations have a grant
relationship with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In
order to qualify for a grant, they must certify that they are
doing certain things. Up until Thursday there was no
requirement, we had no requirement that involved fund-raising
and the brokering of lists and that sort of thing. On Thursday
we put in a requirement that they must certify that they are
operating in full accordance with applicable IRS regulations.
That means, going forward, should they certify that they are
and then they aren't, they would lose--not risk losing, they
would lose funding from the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting.
However, that does not--we have not found a way to apply
such regulations retrospectively.
Mr. Fossella. So if I may, what I hear you saying is that
even if you find out that a number of affiliates have violated
what you say is a new policy, there is nothing you can do about
it?
Mr. Coonrod. Because it is a new policy.
Mr. Fossella. There was no such policy up until Thursday?
Mr. Coonrod. Right.
Mr. Fossella. In terms of the funding level, I think
Congressman Oxley focused on this earlier, do you think that
the funding request made by the administration is adequate?
Mr. Coonrod. I think--let me answer that in two parts, the
request for the operations of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and then the piece for digital. Taking the second
one first, the administration's request does not take into
account a very important part of something that we consider
quite important; that is, the ability of local stations to take
full advantage of the digital technology. The administration's
request would be sufficient if we were just to have stations
pass through a signal. By that I mean they would have to take a
signal from PBS and simply pass it through to viewers. They
would not be able to provide any kind of local educational
services that are an important part of what we do. And on the
digital front that is a big difference between what the
administration has suggested and what we are suggesting.
In terms of the operational funding where we think a larger
number is called for, there are really two parts to that as
well. We are moving into the digital era, and stations for the
foreseeable future will have to be doing both analog and
digital broadcasts because that is what the law will require;
until 85 percent of the population has a digital set, we will
also have to continue broadcasting in analog. So that is an
additional operating expense.
In addition, we are appropriating that we will be able to
multicast and that we will be able to produce programs--
enhanced television programs. Those would be additional program
expenses.
So the increase in funding would not go--the increase in
funding that we are looking for would not go to--would go for
new activities is the way I would describe it. It wouldn't go
for simply sustaining ongoing operations.
Mr. Fossella. Let me make one observation and particularly
to Mr. Duggan. You know in terms of accountability, and it
appears that you want to accept the accountability and
responsibility for making the best out of this bad situation,
but listening, I don't know to what extent you actually can
enforce any of these things, given the almost cooperative
nature of the way you are affiliated with the local stations
around the country. So I guess this is for another day and
another time. But clearly it goes to the heart of the matter if
once you establish this policy, how do you as president intent
to follow through?
So I will yield back. I see my time has expired. Take it up
another day.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman will be allowed to respond.
Mr. Duggan. We have not been in the business at PBS of
sanctioning or punishing our member stations in the past, and
we generally find the level of integrity and conduct among our
member stations to be very high. We do have a membership
relationship with our member stations, and they make certain
certifications every year, one of which is that they are, in
fact, noncommercial and nonprofit.
And I can envision the PBS board perhaps--and here I am
speculating, because I don't know of any plan to do this, but I
can envision a reporting requirement that would be a part of
the certification for membership that would ask member stations
to certify that they engage in no partisan political activity,
they do not do any of these questionable things. So there are
available within the membership relationship being able to
deliver the national programming from Sesame Street to the news
hours to Ken Burns' great documentaries is a very important
thing for our stations, and that comes along with their
membership. So there are certainly mechanisms if the board of
directors of this nonprofit corporation decides to use those
mechanisms that can be put in place.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair yields to the gentleman from Michigan Mr.
Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome. I want to test now whether this
absolutely magnificent display of outrage on the part of my
colleagues is directed at public broadcasting exchanging lists,
or exchanging lists with Democrats.
So we will begin by asking this question: You noted that
there have been exchanges of lists with at least seven entities
involved with the Republican Party, including the 1996 Dole
Victory fund-raising superfile, Conservative Republican
superfile, Country Club Republicans, Golden Age Republicans,
Republican Party Builders, and Great American Donors.
Have you exchanged lists also or have public broadcasters
either at the stations or CPB level or any other level
exchanged lists with the Republican National Congressional
Campaign Committee?
Mr. Coonrod. As far as we can determine, no.
Mr. Dingell. No. Have you done it with the Republican
Senatorial Campaign Committee?
Mr. Coonrod. As far as we can determine, no.
Mr. Dingell. Do the other two gentlemen at the table so
indicate also?
Mr. Duggan. I have no knowledge of any such exchanges, Mr.
Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Has CPB ever exchanged lists with candidates
for public office other than the Dole campaign?
Mr. Coonrod. There is one instance that we are familiar
with in San Francisco.
Mr. Dingell. What is that?
Mr. Coonrod. KQED bartered a list with the Barbara Boxer
campaign.
Mr. Dingell. Okay. Now, tell me this, these lists are
turned over by the local stations, I gather, to brokers?
Mr. Coonrod. All of the activity that we have identified is
through a broker. That is right.
Mr. Dingell. Through a broker, not at station level?
Mr. Coonrod. We have not found--we have not interviewed a
station that engaged in direct list exchange. It was all
through a broker.
Mr. Dingell. Now, what does a broker do when he gets a
list? The broker has got a list, what does he do with this
list?
Mr. Coonrod. I mean, I am not a broker, but brokers broker
lists.
Mr. Dingell. Let's reason together. The broker gets a list.
He has got to do something with it. Obviously he then contacts
somebody else who then wants the list; is that right? Or
somebody else has already contacted him who wants the list; is
that right?
Mr. Coonrod. That is logical, Congressman, but my sense of
how it works is that they maintain lists, they actually have
lists, and it is a more fluid situation. That is my sense of
it.
Mr. Dingell. Was any taxpayers' money involved in the
purchasing of lists?
Mr. Coonrod. There was no--as far as we can tell, there was
no direct taxpayer money. In other words, there was no money
that went from--well, certainly I can say that no direct CPB
dollars were used.
Mr. Dingell. Were any indirect CPB dollars--or was there
any indirect applications of public moneys?
Mr. Coonrod. Possibly. Because the funds are fungible at
the station level, you could--you could speculate that it is
entirely possible that they were used in some way.
Mr. Dingell. Now, what costs are involved in this? Let's
take a unit of 10,000 names, just for the purposes, how much
would be involved? About $900, I understand; is that right?
Mr. Coonrod. It is in that neighborhood. Different lists
have different prices, but it is about a dime a name or
something like that.
Mr. Dingell. About what? A dime a name?
Mr. Coonrod. Or maybe less in some cases.
Mr. Dingell. Who pays the money, and who gets the money?
Mr. Coonrod. There are various ways that this happens. A
common practice is to exchange names where there is no exchange
of money. There is an exchange of information.
Mr. Dingell. That is one example where you just trade
names.
Mr. Coonrod. Then there is the renting of a list where
someone will, on a one-time basis, for a fee, for some small
amount of money per name, rent a list from a list broker or
through a list broker. Public television stations engage in
that practice with some frequency as far as we can determine.
Mr. Dingell. They do this as a regular business practice,
or do these brokers subsist entirely upon the revenue that they
derive from public broadcasting?
Mr. Coonrod. As far as we can determine, there are about
24,000 not-for-profit organizations that engage in some sort of
list sharing.
Mr. Dingell. 24,000?
Mr. Coonrod. That is on a data base that we were able to
search.
Mr. Dingell. Would that include church groups?
Mr. Coonrod. Yes, it would include not-for-profit
organizations.
Mr. Dingell. You don't mean to say that a church group
would exchange names with the Democratic Party, do you?
Mr. Coonrod. I am not an expert.
Mr. Dingell. How about hospitals?
Mr. Coonrod. Hospitals would be on the list, not-for-profit
hospitals.
Mr. Dingell. Religious orders?
Mr. Coonrod. I don't know about religious orders.
Mr. Dingell. I find this a fascinating subject. Obviously
if we have a corrupt practice here, it must be engaged in by
churchmen, too, and women.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
will be allowed to respond.
Mr. Dingell. I was just getting down to a very fascinating
subject here.
Mr. Tauzin. I realize that, sir, but the gentleman's time
has expired.
Mr. Coonrod. I can't speculate on what others do, but I
think the point that we come back to is that public
broadcasters ought to refrain from practices that have the
appearance of partisanship.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Illinois Mr. Rush for a round of questions.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My first
question before--first question I have is we have a public
broadcasting channel or station in Chicago, WTTW. Are they a
part of the infamous 53?
Mr. Coonrod. I believe we contacted WTTW, and I believe
that they have engaged the service of a list broker. So I am
not exactly sure how you phrased your question, but they are
one of the 53 we have identified. We can be more specific when
we check the data by station.
Mr. Rush. All right. How long has the sharing either, by
selling or otherwise, of donor lists by your affiliates been
going on?
Mr. Coonrod. I can't answer that with any precision, but we
have identified practices dating back to 1981. But I don't know
how long----
Mr. Rush. Does sharing always involve brokers?
Mr. Coonrod. It doesn't always involve brokers, but in the
stations that we have surveyed, and we have started from the
top, those most likely to engage in the exchange of lists, the
activity almost exclusively involves brokers among the stations
that we have surveyed.
Mr. Rush. Okay. In response to a question Mr. Dingell had
earlier, you mentioned bartering. What is the characteristics
of a bartering of lists, what is that? Money is not involved in
that?
Mr. Coonrod. One of the practices is that lists are traded.
So you--you in effect barter a certain number of names for a
certain number of names in return.
Mr. Rush. And brokers are not involved in that at all?
Mr. Coonrod. No brokers are involved in that. I don't know
the exact mechanism, but there is a brokerage fee, I would
assume, because of the way they manage the lists. And these are
all computerized, so somebody has to manage the computer
program and that sort of thing.
Mr. Rush. If I can recall from previous testimony, you
indicated that 85 percent of your revenues for your affiliate
stations come through individual fund-raising efforts; is that
right?
Mr. Coonrod. No, sir, I think what you are referring to is
roughly 15 percent comes from the Federal Government or through
the CPB, and there are other sources. Subscribers, and the
fund-raising. Subscribers account for about 23 percent of the
total revenue for public broadcasters. The most current year
that we have complete data available was 1997, and it was $472
million from all membership sources, not just through the list,
but on-air pledges and everything else.
Mr. Rush. Public dollars account for approximately 15
percent?
Mr. Coonrod. That is right.
Mr. Rush. Fund-raisers or affiliate stations have to engage
in pretty aggressive fund-raising; is that right?
Mr. Coonrod. Indeed.
Mr. Rush. Was there ever a time when the exchanging or
sharing of lists, exclusively a function of not-for-profit
organizations sharing lists with each other for fund-raising,
that did not involve political parties?
Mr. Coonrod. I am not sure I----
Mr. Rush. Was there ever a time that you know of where
political parties were not engaged with your affiliate stations
in terms of sharing of lists?
Mr. Coonrod. I don't know the answer to that. We don't have
the information.
Mr. Rush. Okay. Did either Republican Party candidates or
office holders of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party
share lists with your member stations any of your member
stations?
Mr. Coonrod. Yes, well, let's be clear. They have gone
through brokers, and those brokers have had lists available. So
the way it has been described to us is that it is probable that
names from the candidates' list were provided to the public
television station. It would take some work to fully go back
and track the specific name.
Mr. Rush. So you are saying----
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman may proceed for 1 minute without
objection.
Mr. Rush. So you are saying that it is not unheard of that
political parties would share their donor lists with your
affiliate networks; is that right?
Mr. Coonrod. I have become an instant expert in this
subject, and I don't know what the practices of political
parties are. But I do know from looking at it from the public
broadcasting point of view, that the same brokers who broker
lists for public broadcasting stations also broker lists for
political parties.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair would, before dismissing this panel, would like
to give you, Mr. Coonrod, a chance to correct or perhaps
elaborate on the testimony that you gave in writing as opposed
to the testimony you have given orally today.
In your written testimony on page 5, I quote, based on what
we know today, approximately 50 of the public television's 353
stations, or about 15 percent, exchange lists with other
nonprofit organizations, almost all using list brokers as
intermediaries. It is unclear from your oral testimony as to
whether or not there were, in fact, some of the stations who
provided or exchanged lists with other nonprofit organizations
without going through a broker or an intermediary. At one point
you said no. You answered my question there were none. Your
testimony implies there were some. In your testimony with Mr.
Rush, you again implied that there may have been some. What is
the correct answer?
Mr. Coonrod. Based on what I know right now, I guess that
is the way I would have to put it, we have not found any
station that has exchanged a mailing list with a political
party directly. That is all--any time that has happened, it has
been through a broker. But given the way the facts change from
time to time, it is possible that there is information out
there that we haven't collected.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, you understand why, when you give us a
written statement that says almost all use brokers, it leaves
the impression that you did have knowledge that someone did
not. You are telling us you do not have knowledge?
Mr. Coonrod. I do not have knowledge--let me be clear. What
we have tried to do, Congressman, is corroborate whatever
information that we have so that we could be sure that the
information we were providing was accurate. And so we tried to
get at least, if I may use that, two sources. And when there
was conflicting information, we would go down to a deeper
level. And so I wanted to make sure that we were not providing
information that in any way could be incorrect.
Mr. Tauzin. Now, again, before we dismiss you, you indicate
that you have surveyed a group that represents less than 10
percent of the radio and television stations in public
broadcasting.
Mr. Coonrod. That is right.
Mr. Tauzin. So we have information coming from only a 10
percent sample.
Mr. Coonrod. That is right.
Mr. Tauzin. You also indicate that the CPB's inspector
general is conducting an independent review, and he would make
it available to us as soon as it is completed. Can you tell us
when that would be?
Mr. Coonrod. I can tell you what I believe his schedule is,
and that he would have it done within 30 days, but I can
confirm that for you to be sure.
Mr. Tauzin. Does the CPB inspector general have sufficient
staff to do this in an appropriate amount of time for this
committee to be satisfied with the results?
Mr. Coonrod. Well, once again, he could answer that better,
but if he needs additional staff, I would certainly do
everything I can to make sure it was available to him.
Mr. Tauzin. It would be extremely helpful, and the chairman
would so request of you, Mr. Coonrod, that perhaps periodic
reports be made to this committee, perhaps on a weekly basis,
as information is discovered that we can track this survey and
identify whether or not progress is being made in conducting an
inquiry as to the other 90 percent of the stations that have
not yet, apparently, been investigated.
Mr. Coonrod. We could report to the committee weekly.
Mr. Tauzin. The committee will so request that we get a
weekly report, and the committee would like to realize we
cannot set a deadline for your inspector general, but we would
like if at all possible to have that final report within those
30 days that we might be able to act accordingly.
Mr. Coonrod. I will work with the inspector general to make
sure that he has sufficient resources to do it as quickly as is
possible.
Mr. Tauzin. Are there any questions by any of the other
members?
Gentlemen, you have my thanks for your participation today,
and we will now call the second panel forward.
The second panel will consist of Mr. Ken Burns, president,
Florentine Films, Maple Grove Road, of Walpole, New Hampshire;
and Mr. Kent Lassman, deputy director of technology and
communications for Citizen for a Sound Economy Foundation in
DC; Dr. Amy Jordan, senior research investigator of the
Annenberg Public Policy Center in Philadelphia; and Mr. Timothy
Graham, director of media analysis, Media Research Center, in
Alexandria, Virginia.
Mr. Tauzin. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here.
We will begin with someone I know everyone recognizes, Mr. Ken
Burns.
Mr. Burns.
STATEMENTS OF KEN BURNS, PRESIDENT, FLORENTINE FILMS; KENT
LASSMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS,
CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY FOUNDATION; AMY B. JORDAN, SENIOR
RESEARCH INVESTIGATOR, ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; AND TIMOTHY GRAHAM, DIRECTOR OF
MEDIA ANALYSIS, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for me
to appear today, and I am grateful you have given me this
opportunity to express my thoughts. Let me say at the outset as
the father of two daughters and a film producer increasingly
concerned with violence on television that I am a passionate,
lifelong supporter of public television as well as someone
engaged in it. Few institutions provide such a direct grass-
roots way for our citizens to participate in the shared glories
of their common past, in the power of the priceless ideals that
have animated our remarkable Republic for the last 200 years,
and in the inspirational life of the mind and the heart that an
engagement with the arts always provides. It is my wholehearted
belief that anything that threatens this institution weakens
this country.
I have been producing documentary films for almost 25
years, celebrating the special messages the American past
continually directs our way. And these include films on the
Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty, the turbulent
Louisiana politician Huey Long, and on the--I think--the
sublime pleasures and unexpected lessons of our national
pastime, and, of course, the searing transcendent experience of
our Civil War. I even made a film on the history of this
magnificent Capitol Building and the much maligned institution
that is charged with conducting the people's business. But in
every instance, Mr. Chairman, I have consciously produced these
films for national public television broadcast, not the
lucrative commercial networks or cable.
As an educational filmmaker I am grateful to play even a
small part in an underfunded broadcasting entity which, among
dozens of fabulously wealthy networks, just happens to produce
on shoestring budgets the best news and public affairs
programming on television, the best science on television, the
best arts on television, the best children's shows on
television, and some say the best history on television.
With Congress' great insight, public television was born
and grew to its startlingly effective maturity echoing the same
time-honored sense that our government has an interest in
helping to sponsor communication, art and education just as it
sponsors commerce. We are not talking about a 100 percent
sponsorship, a free ride, but a priming of the pump, a way to
get the juices flowing in the spirit of President Reagan's
notion of a partnership between the government and the private
sector.
The CPB grant I got for my Civil War series attracted even
more funds from General Motors and several private foundations,
money that would not have been there had not the Corporation
for public broadcasting blessed the project with its rigorously
earned imprimatur. But there are those who are sure that
without public television, the so-called marketplace would take
care of everything, that what will not survive in the
marketplace does not deserve to survive, and nothing could be
further from the truth, because we are not just talking about
the commerce of a Nation. We are not just economic beings, but
spiritual and intellectual beings as well. And so we are
talking about the creativity of a Nation.
Some forms of creativity thrive in the marketplace, and
that is a wonderful thing reflected in our Hollywood movies and
our globally popular music. But let me say the marketplace
could not make, and to this day could not have made, the Civil
War series or any of the films I have been working on. The
marketplace will not, indeed cannot, produce the good works of
PBS, just as the marketplace does not and will not pay for our
fire department or our Defense Department, things essential to
the safety, the defense, and well-being of our country. It
takes government involvement, eleemosynary institutions,
individual altruism, extramarketplace effort to get these
things made and done. I also know, Mr. Chairman, that PBS has
nothing to do with the actual defense of our country. I know
that. PBS just makes our country worth defending.
The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt
Gingrich, spoke eloquently and often of an American people
poised for the 21st century, endowed with a shared heritage of
sacrifice and honor, the highest ideals mankind has yet
advanced, but also armed with new technologies that would
enable us to go forward as one people. I say to all of those
who would listen that we have in public television exactly what
he had envisioned.
Many have recently criticized public television for certain
controversial actions and projects with possibly too political
a bent. I share the outrage of those who have condemned these
lapses, but that is all they are. Let us not be so foolish, as
Congressman Wynn suggested, to throw the baby out with the bath
water. To paraphrase the historian David McCullough, to
diminish the effectiveness of this institution for these
transgressions would be like getting rid of the Navy for the
Tailhook scandal. Let us respond reasonably.
The historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., has said that we
suffer from too much ``pluribus'' and not enough ``unum.'' few
things survive in these cynical days to remind us of the Union
from which so many of our collective and personal blessings
flow, and it is hard to wonder in an age when the present
moment overshadows all else what finally does endure, what
encodes and stores the genetic material, the DNA of our
civilization passing down to the next generation the best of
us, what we hope at least will mutate into betterness for our
children and for our posterity.
Mr. Chairman, I think PBS offers one clear answer. It is
the best thing that we have in our television environment that
reminds us why we agreed to cohere as a people, and that is a
very good thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ken Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Burns, President, Florentine Films
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It is an honor for me to
appear before you today and I am grateful that you have given me this
opportunity to express my thoughts. Let me say from the outset--as a
father of two daughters and a film producer, increasingly concerned
about violence on television--that I am a passionate life-long
supporter of public television and its unique role in helping to stitch
our exquisite, diverse, and often fragile culture together.
Few institutions provide such a direct, grassroots way for our
citizens to participate in the shared glories of their common past, in
the power of the priceless ideals that have animated our remarkable
republic and our national life for more than two hundred years, and in
the inspirational life of the mind and the heart that an engagement
with the arts always provides. It is my wholehearted belief that
anything which threatens this institution weakens our country. It is as
simple as that.
For almost 25 years I have been producing historical documentary
films, celebrating the special messages American history continually
directs our way. The subjects of these films range from the
construction of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty to the
life of the turbulent demagogue Huey Long; from the graceful
architecture of the Shakers to the early founders of radio; from the
sublime pleasures and unexpected lessons of our national pastime to the
searing transcendent experience of our Civil War; from Thomas Jefferson
and Lewis and Clark to Frank Lloyd Wright, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and
Mark Twain. I even made a film on the history of this magnificent
Capitol building and the much maligned institution that is charged with
conducting the people's business.
In every instance, I consciously produced these films for national
public television broadcast, not the lucrative commercial networks or
cable.
As an educational filmmaker I am grateful to play even a small part
in an underfunded, broadcasting entity, with one foot tenuously in the
marketplace and the other decidedly and proudly out, which, among
dozens of fabulously wealthy networks, just happens to produce--on
shoestring budgets--the best news and public affairs programming on
television, the best science on television, the best arts on
television, the best children's shows on television, and some say the
best history on television.
When I was working more than 15 years ago on my film about the
Statue of Liberty, its history and powerful symbolism, I had the great
good fortune to meet and interview Vartan Gregorian, who was then the
president of the New York Public Library. After an extremely
interesting and passionate interview on the meaning behind the statue
for an immigrant like him--from Tabriz, Iran--Vartan took me on a long
and fascinating tour of the miles of stacks of the Library. Finally,
after galloping down one claustrophobic corridor after another, he
stopped and gestured expansively. ``This,'' he said, surveying his
library from its guts, ``this is the DNA of our civilization.''
I think he was saying that that library, indeed, all libraries,
archives, and historical societies are the DNA of our society, leaving
an imprint of excellence and intention for generations to come. It
occurs to me, as we consider the rich history of education and service
of PBS, (and as we are forced again and again and again to justify our
very existence,) that we must certainly include this great institution
in that list of the DNA of our civilization. That we are part of the
great genetic legacy of our nation. And that cannot, should not, be
denied us or our posterity.
We have consistently provided, with our modest resources, and over
more than three tumultuous decades, quite simply an antidote to the
vast wasteland of television my friend Newt Minnow so accurately
described. We do things differently. We are hardly a ``disappearing
niche,'' as some suggest, but a vibrant, galvanic force capable of
sustaining this experiment well into our uncertain future.
But now, and sadly not for the first time, I hear critics saying
yet again that PBS must be scrapped, that our government has no
business in television or the arts and humanities, that we must let the
marketplace alone determine everything in our cultural life, that this
huge broad based institution is essentially elitist, that a few
controversial projects and actions prove the leftist political bias of
the public television community. I feel strongly that I must respond to
these charges.
Since the beginning of this country, our government has been
involved in supporting the arts and the diffusion of knowledge, which
was deemed as critical to our future as roads and dams and bridges.
Early on, Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers knew that the
pursuit of happiness did not mean a hedonistic search for pleasure in
the marketplace but an active involvement of the mind in the higher
aspects of human endeavor--namely education, music, the arts, and
history. Congress supported the journey of Lewis and Clark as much to
explore the natural, biological, ethnographic, and cultural landscape
of our expanding nation as to open up a new trading route to the
Pacific. Congress supported numerous geographical, artistic,
photographic, and biological expeditions to nearly every corner of the
developing West. Congress funded, through the Farm Securities
Administration, the work of Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange and other
great photographers who captured for posterity the terrible human cost
of the Depression. At the same time, Congress funded some of the most
enduring writing ever produced about this country's people, its
monuments, buildings, and backroads in the still much used and admired
WPA guides. Some of our greatest symphonic work, our most treasured
dramatic plays, and early documentary film classics came from an
earlier Congress' support.
With Congress' great insight Public Television was born and grew to
its startlingly effective maturity echoing the same time-honored sense
that our Government has an interest in helping to sponsor
Communication, Art and Education just as it sponsors Commerce. We are
not talking about a 100% sponsorship, a free ride, but a priming of the
pump, a way to get the juices flowing, in the spirit of President
Reagan's notion of a partnership between the government and the private
sector. The CPB grant I got for the Civil War series attracted even
more funds from General Motors and several private foundations; money
that would not have been there had not the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting blessed this project with their rigorously earned
imprimatur.
But there are those who are sure that without the Endowments, the
so-called ``marketplace'' would take care of everything; that what
won't survive in the marketplace, doesn't deserve to survive. Nothing
could be further from the truth, because we are not just talking about
the commerce of a nation, we are not just economic beings, but
spiritual and intellectual beings as well, and so we are talking about
the creativity of a nation. Now, some forms of creativity thrive in the
marketplace and that is a wonderful thing, reflected in our Hollywood
movies and our universally popular music. But let me say that the
marketplace could not have made and to this day could not make my Civil
War series, indeed any of the films I have made.
That series was shown on public television, outside the
marketplace, without commercial interruption, by far the single most
important factor for our insuring PBS's continuing existence and for
understanding the Civil War series' overwhelming success. All real
meaning in our world accrues in duration; that is to say, that which we
value the most--our families, our work, the things we build, our art--
has the stamp of our focused attention. Without that attention, we do
not learn, we do not remember, we do not care. We are not responsible
citizens. The programming on PBS in all its splendid variety, offers
the rarest treat amidst the outrageous cacophony of our television
marketplace--it gives us back our attention. And by so doing, insures
that we have a future.
The marketplace will not, indeed cannot, produce the good works of
PBS. Just as the marketplace does not and will not pay for our fire
department or more important our Defense Department, things essential
to the safety, defense and well-being of our country. It takes
government involvement, eleemosynary institutions, individual altruism,
extra-marketplace effort to get these things made and done. I also
know, Mr. Chairman, that PBS has nothing to do with the actual defense
of our country, I know that--PBS just makes our country worth
defending.
Do not be persuaded by the argument that this is all elitist, that
we are funding the superfluous; ``opera for the rich.'' The meat and
potatoes of public television reaches out to every corner of the
country and touches people in positive ways the Federal Government
rarely does. Indeed, it would be elitist itself to abolish the
Endowments, to trust to the marketplace and the ``natural aristocracy''
that many have promised over the last two hundred years would rise up
to protect us all--and hasn't.
With regard to my own films, I have been quite lucky. The Civil War
series was public television's highest rated program and has been
described as one of the best programs in the history of the medium. But
that show, indeed all of my films produced over the last quarter of a
century, are only a small part, a tiny fraction, of the legacy of PBS.
If public television's mission is severely hampered or curtailed, I
suppose I will find work, but not the kind that insures good television
or speaks to the overarching theme of all my films--that which we
Americans all hold in common. But more to the point, where will the
next generation of filmmakers be trained? By the difficult rigorous
process of CPB and PBS or by the ``Hard Copy's'' of the world? I hope
it will be the former.
The former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich
spoke eloquently and often of an American people poised for the twenty-
first century, endowed with a shared heritage of sacrifice and honor
and the highest ideals mankind has yet advanced, but also armed with
new technologies that would enable us to go forward as one people. I
say to all who would listen that we have in public television exactly
what he envisions.
Many have recently criticized public television for certain
controversial actions and projects with possibly too political a bent.
I share the outrage of those who have condemned these lapses. But
that's all they are: mistakes made by institutions forced continually
to find sources of revenue from ever more disparate sources. Let us not
be so foolish as to throw the baby out with the bath water. As
historian David McCullough said, to abolish this institution for these
transgressions, ``would be like getting rid of the Navy after the
Tailhook scandal.'' Let us respond reasonably.
Unfortunately, some continue to believe that public television is a
hot-bed of radical thinking. I wonder, though, have they ever been to a
PBS station? I doubt it. PBS is the largest network in the world,
reaching into the most remote corners of every state in the Union and
enriching the lives of people of all backgrounds. These are essentially
conservative institutions, filled with people who share the concerns of
most Americans. Indeed, PBS is supported by 70% of Republicans, 80% of
Independents, and 90% of Democrats across the country. And Mr.
Chairman, I know many people who criticize us as too conservative, to
middle of the road, too safe.
And in a free society, the rare examples of controversy that may
run counter to our accepted cannon, or one group's accepted cannon,
need not be the occasion for a new reactionary Puritanism, but ought to
be seen as a healthy sign that we are a nation tolerant of ideas,
confident--as the recent tide of geo-political history has shown--that
the best ideas will always prevail.
One hundred and fifty seven years ago, in 1838, well before the
Civil War, Abraham Lincoln challenged us to consider the real threat to
the country, to consider forever the real cost of our inattention:
``Whence shall we expect the approach of danger?'' he wrote. ``Shall
some transatlantic giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never.
All the armies of Europe and Asia could not by force take a drink from
the Ohio River or make a track in the Blue Ridge in the trial of a
thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its
author and finisher.'' As usual, Mr. Lincoln speaks to us today with
the same force he spoke to his own times.
Mr. Chairman, clearly we in public television must not take
ourselves too seriously. Sometimes our greatest strength, our
earnestness metastasizes into our greatest weakness. I know it's true
for me. Usually a faithful and true companion, our earnestness and
seriousness is sometimes worked to death. And Lord how we like to see
our mission as the cure. I remember once, after giving an impassioned
defense of what we do at PBS, a man came up to me and said simply,
``It's not brain surgery, you know.'' (Perhaps.)
But a few weeks ago, on a perfect spring day, I was walking with my
oldest daughter through a park in a large American city on the way to a
college interview. We were taking our time, enjoying the first warm day
of the year, when a man of about thirty, dressed in a three piece suit,
approached me.
``You're Ken Burns.'' he asked.
I nodded.
``I need to talk to you about Baseball,'' he said under his breath.
``Okay.'' I hesitated.
Then, he blurted out: ``My brother's daughter died.'' I took a step
backward.
``I'm sorry,'' I said. I didn't know what else to say.
``SIDS.'' he said. ``Crib death. She was only one.''
``I'm so sorry,'' I said. ``I have daughters.''
``I didn't know what to do,'' he said in a halting, utterly sad
voice. ``My brother and I are very close. Then I thought of your film.
I went home to our mother's house, got our baseball mitts, and went to
my brother's. I didn't say a word. I handed him his mitt and we went
out into the backyard and we played catch wordlessly for an hour. Then
I went home . . . I just wanted to thank you.''
Maybe it is brain surgery.
Mr. Chairman, most of us here, whether we know it or not, are in
the business of words. And we hope with some reasonable expectations
that those words will last. But alas, especially today, those words
often evaporate, their precision blunted by neglect, their insight
diminished by the shear volume of their ever increasing brethren, their
force diluted by ancient animosities that seem to set each group
against the other.
The historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has said that we suffer today
from ``too much pluribus, not enough unum.'' Few things survive in
these cynical days to remind us of the Union from which so many of our
personal as well as collective blessings flow. And it is hard not to
wonder, in an age when the present moment overshadows all else--our
bright past and our unknown future--what finally does endure? What
encodes and stores that genetic material of our civilization, passing
down to the next generation--the best of us--what we hope will mutate
into betterness for our children and our posterity.
PBS holds one clear answer. Please do not be the author of its
destruction, the finisher of their important good works. PBS is the
best thing we have in our television environment that reminds us why we
agree to cohere as a people. And that is a fundamentally good thing.
Nothing in our daily life offers more of the comfort of continuity,
the generational connection of belonging to a vast and complicated
American family, the powerful sense of home, and the great gift of
accumulated memory than does this great system which honors me by
counting me a member.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Burns.
The Chair will now welcome and recognize Mr. Ken Lassman,
deputy director of technology and communications for the
Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation. Mr. Lassman.
STATEMENT OF KENT LASSMAN
Mr. Lassman. The role of authorization within the budget
process is to review the original mission of every Federal
agency and program. The dramatic change to the communications
marketplace in the last 30 years makes Federal subsidy to the
Corporation for public broadcasting unnecessary. The question
before us today should be how soon can we allow the CPB to
break free of these subsidies, and what action will you take to
allow the CPB to flourish?
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to share a free market perspective on the CPB
authorization. I am the deputy director for technology and
communications policy at Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation, and I present these views on behalf of our 250,000
members.
The CPB is a dinosaur, and I offer to you that if it
survives, it will be because of change from within, because the
forces of technology have already transformed the environment
in which it operates. This morning's statements clarify a few
ideas. See, some folks like it, and some folks treasure it, and
some folks would go so far as to say it is an American
institution. And I for one think that folks should get to keep
it. You might think I am talking about the CPB and public
broadcasting, and I am, but I am also talking about American
taxpayer dollars.
Today consumers have untold number of choices that did not
exist when the CPB was created. To continue to subsidize the
CPB would be like subsidies for the Pony Express in an era
after the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone, facsimile
machines and even e-mail has come on the scene. It simply is
not necessary.
The traditional story about the funding of the CPB is well-
known. At the time that it was created, three networks
dominated the television marketplace. Rowan and Martin's Laugh-
In was the top-rated program, and Congress appropriated $5
million to the CPB in fiscal year 1969. Today 9 of the top 20
cable networks are devoted to education, public affairs, news,
or children's programming. A quick search of the Internet turns
up hundreds if not thousands of Web sites devoted to every
imaginable local, cultural, artistic and educational topic.
What began as a modest expenditure is now a monstrosity.
Adjusted for inflation, $7.4 billion has been taken from
taxpayers to subsidize the CPB in the last 30 years.
The legislation that this hearing was called to address
would increase funding for the CPB at a time when the subsidy
should be limited and eventually eliminated. H.R. 2384 creates
a formula so that as alternative sources of funding are
realized, Federal funding doesn't diminish. Not only does this
guarantee that more taxpayer dollars are spent on public
broadcasting, but it makes it impossible for public
broadcasting to outgrow its history of Federal support.
Likewise, the $415 million authorized for a single class of
broadcasters to transition from analog to digital technologies
is nothing more than a high-tech handout. If public
broadcasters raised funds for their digital transition through
private markets, there would be at least three positive
effects. First, taxpayers and the Congress would have a rough
proxy of how consumers value the CPB and its affiliates.
Second, a hybrid format with digital as well as analog
programming would create value in the economy rather than
replacement of one set of programming for another. And the
third positive effect would be to allow public broadcasters to
continue to reach the poorest Americans, who would be the last
to purchase new television and radio equipment.
Digital conversion should be the opportunity to set the CPB
free of Federal subsidies. As of now I am afraid it is viewed
as an obligation to spend more money. I want to set the record
straight. It is a mistake to confuse the CPB with all of public
broadcasting. CPB is only one source of support for public
broadcasting. In 1997, only 7 percent of funding for public
broadcasting, 7 percent, came from the CPB. The same year
operating revenue shot up a total of $47 million, an increase
of 23 percent. Over the last 2 years, PBS grew by 30 percent
while its CPB funding dropped. Evidently, popular, well-
researched and thorough programs like those that Mr. Burns
creates can succeed in the marketplace.
Some critics claim that quality programming cannot be
supported with private support. In essence this argument
requires one of two assumptions. Its advocates might believe
that the programming is not good enough. Well, they are wrong.
Or they might believe that consumers do not know enough for
themselves about what they need, and that a benevolent,
federally funded public broadcaster should come in to deliver
art and education and culture. They are wrong on this point as
well.
Mr. Chairman, I have several things to share with you, and
I will reserve them for your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Kent Lassman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kent Lassman, Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation
In 1899, Lee de Forest completed doctoral work at Yale studying the
length and velocity of electromagnetic waves. In the introduction to
his autobiography, Father of Radio, de Forest wrote, ``I discovered an
Invisible Empire of the Air, intangible, yet solid as granite.''
<SUP>1</SUP> A century after de Forest's experiments, the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an empire of the airwaves; its form is
difficult to grasp and it is solidly entrenched in the federal budget.
Like de Forest, I believe in progress and progress requires
alternatives to increased federal funding for the CPB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lewis, Tom, ``Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio,''
HarperCollins, 1991, New York, page 364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPB is a dinosaur. If the CPB survives, it will be because of
change from within, because the forces of technology have transformed
the communications environment in which it operates.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share my views on the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and its budgetary authorization. As you may know, I am the
deputy director for technology and communications policy at Citizens
for a Sound Economy Foundation (CSE Foundation), and I present these
views on behalf of CSE Foundation's members.<SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CSE Foundation does not receive any funds from the U.S.
Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than a quarter of a million strong, CSE Foundation's members
are found in every corner of America. Our members distinguish
themselves as political activists. They constantly remind us that
decisions made in Washington, D.C. are felt in places far away from
here. And that is where CSE Foundation can be found. We fight at the
grassroots level for lower taxes and less regulation of the economy.
And let it not be forgotten that political activists are also
consumers, consumers of the myriad high-quality goods and services
available in America, including public broadcasting.
Introduction
This hearing immediately brings to mind a few ideas. Some folks
like it. Some folks treasure it. Some folks even consider it an
American institution. I for one think that folks should get to keep it.
You might think that I am talking about the CPB. I am. And of
course, I am talking about taxpayer dollars as well. The purpose of
this hearing is to consider an authorization for the CPB. The role of
authorization within the budget process is to review the original
mission of every federal agency. Given the dramatic changes to the
communications marketplace in the last 30 years, continued federal
subsidies for the CPB are unnecessary. The question to answer is how
soon can the CBP break free of federal subsidies.
Today, consumers have untold number of choices today that did not
exist when the CPB was created. To continue subsidies for the CPB is
like subsidizing the Pony Express in an era of railroads, the
telegraph, facsimile machines, the telephone and email.
Federal subsidies should end as soon as possible. If the CPB has a
place in a marketplace filled with satellite, Internet, and cable
communications, it could become something of a ``United Way'' for the
airwaves. The next generation of the CPB could raise private dollars to
help local broadcasters.
This statement has two basic points.
1. Contrary to what you may hear today, the health of public
broadcasting does not depend upon federal funding. Last year,
approximately 17.5 percent of PBS' funding came from the
federal government. All told, only 7 percent is from the CPB.
In fact, evidence suggests that as federal funding decreases
public broadcasting becomes stronger.
2. The marketplace today is dramatically different than it was 30 years
ago. Direct satellite broadcast, new over-the-air broadcast,
video rental, cable and the Internet are competitive sources of
education and entertainment. Independent, community-based, and
educational programming is available across America.
Funding
Over the last several years, public broadcasting raised more money
and operated larger budgets when federal funding decreased, or at best,
remained stable. It should come as no surprise that federal funding is
like a poison pill. Economic resources in the private sector are often
more efficient, produce higher quality goods, and are more innovative
than the resources in the public sector.
Federal Authorization and Appropriation. The traditional story told
about the funding of the CPB is well known by many members of this
committee. At the time that the CPB was created, three networks
dominated the television broadcast marketplace. In FY 1969, the
administration requested $9 million and Congress appropriated $5
million to the CPB. Over the last 30 years, more than $5.2 billion has
been taken from taxpayers and used to subsidize the CPB.<SUP>3</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For three decades, federal funding of the CPB has grown at
staggering rates. After the initial $5 million outlay, the next
appropriation was tripled and then the CPB appropriation grew an
additional 53 percent in FY 1971. By FY 1979, the CPB was taking home
more than $120 million--24 times more than FY 1969--from the federal
treasury. According to the President's Budget, (FY 2000, Historical
Tables, 12.3) in the proceeding ten years the CPB appropriation went to
$228 million, an increase of 90 percent. The most recent decade has
seen CPB appropriations balloon to as much as $323 million in a single
year. McCalip, Bernevia, ``95063: Public Broadcasting: Issus in the
106th Congress,'' CRS Issue Brief for Congress, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent authorization for the CPB expired at the end of FY
1996. This fact alone is cause for pause. H.R. 2384 would authorize the
CPB for five years. Before consideration is made as to at what level
the CPB should be funded, an initial and more important question must
be answered. Should the CPB be dependent upon federal money? If not, is
a five-year authorization necessary?
Once the primary question is addressed, it is possible to debate
the proper level of funding. The proposed legislation not only appears
to put the cart before the horse with a five-year authorization, but it
also loads the cart down with excessive baggage.
The baggage is of course a tremendous amount of money. H.R. 2384
would increase federal spending on the CPB by more than 60 percent next
year.<SUP>4</SUP> The legislation would increase funding by an
additional $40 million in FY 2001--an increase of more than 13 percent.
A one-year hike of 40 percent, or even 13 percent, is impossible to
justify especially given that last week the Labor Department released
data to show that there was no inflation for the second consecutive
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See also, Lilly, Aaron, M. ``He's Almost 31 Years Old: It's
Time for Big Bird to Leave the Next,'' TAX Fact #22, Citizens for a
Sound Economy, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, H.R. 2384 creates a formula that ensures that federal
funding does not diminish even as alternative sources of funding for
public broadcasting are realized. This is a poor approach. Not only
does this guarantee that more taxpayer dollars are spent on public
broadcasting, but it makes it impossible for public broadcasting to
outgrow its history of dependency on federal support.
Digital Technology Conversion. A transition to digital broadcast is
cumbersome and expensive. The fact that it may be difficult for public
broadcasters to invest in new equipment, systems, and training should
highlight a larger problem. It is a problem faced by all broadcasters
as the result of statutory deadlines. Authorizing and ultimately
appropriating federal subsidies to any single class of broadcasters to
aid in this transition is nothing more than a high-tech handout.
Taxpayer dollars should not fund improvements to the physical plant of
broadcasters.
As recent as the President's FY 1999 Budget, $375 million was
requested to subsidize this transition. The legislation before you
today increases this give-away by $40 million.
Obviously, supporters of H.R. 2384 view a transition to digital
broadcasting as a problem to be solved with taxpayers' money. The
contrary might be a healthier and more productive perspective. A
transition to digital does not have to be a simple substitution for
traditional analog broadcasting. In fact, the marketplace may support
analog broadcasting for many years to come. Due to overhead, we might
expect that every one of the $415 million authorized to the transition
would not be invested in new equipment and systems. Yet, for a
downstream share of revenues, it is entirely plausible that hundreds of
millions of dollars of investment could be financed through private
markets. It is not prudent to pour federal dollars into the conversion
of public broadcasting to digital when alternatives have not even been
entertained.
If public broadcasters raised funds for their digital conversion
through private markets, there would be at least three broad positive
effects: First, taxpayers and the Congress could have a rough proxy of
how consumers value the CPB and its affiliates.
In 1995, Representative Jack Fields entertained private sector bids
for portions of public broadcasting. The fact that at least three firms
would have bid for all or part of PBS hints at the value of public
broadcasting properties. Why should federal support continue if there
are private firms and individual investors willing to pay a market
value for public broadcasting?
Second, a hybrid format--digital and analog programming--would
create value in the economy rather than simply replace one set of
programming with another. Make no mistake; the effect of this proposal
would be to grow public broadcasting in America. It would however grow
as a result of private and not public funds. While this is not the time
for a lengthy discussion on spectrum management, it is imperative to
point out that the highest degrees of spectrum flexibility must be
available in the marketplace to encourage private investment.
A third positive effect would be to allow public broadcasters to
continue to reach the poorest Americans who would be the last to
purchase new television and radio equipment. Digital conversion could
be an opportunity to set the CPB free of federal subsidies instead of
an obligation to spend more money.
Financial Health. The CPB is doing quite well. At the end of last
year, the CPB had $137,844,824 on hand.<SUP>5</SUP> At the very least,
past appropriations and other revenue streams should be considered as
decisions are made about federal funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CPB 1998 Annual Report, http://www.cpb.org/atwork/
annualreports/1998/fin--rep.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a mistake to confuse the CPB with all of public broadcasting.
The CPB operates as a funding conduit for PBS, National Public Radio
(NPR), and their affiliates. The CPB is only one source of support for
public broadcasting. When the rhetoric heats up, Big Bird, Barney and
Masterpiece Theater make the headlines. However, it is also a mistake
to think that the decisions made in this room will decide the future of
a popular or high-quality program. Popular programs succeed in the
marketplace.
The end of funding for the CPB is not the end of public
broadcasting. Consider that in 1997, only 7 percent of funding for the
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) came from the CPB.<SUP>6</SUP> Yet,
the FY 1997 operating revenues were up a total of $47 million over FY
1996, an increase of 23 percent.<SUP>7</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ PBS 1997 Annual Report, http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/
annualreport1997/highlights.html.
\7\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To put this growth in perspective, if I grew 23 percent in the next
year, I would be 7 feet, 7 inches tall. If the membership of the House
grew at the same rate, there would be 100 additional members next year
and this subcommittee would have 33 members.
The total revenues for PBS in FY 1997 were in excess of $369
million. The outright elimination of the PBS revenues from the CPB,
nearly $25,900,000, is more than $11 million less than PBS' new
operating revenues. There are more new revenues for PBS than the total
amount of money from the CPB. This is ``due largely to growth in PBS's
Learning Ventures activities, such as PBS The Business Channel, PBS
Home Video and the PBS Adult Learning Service.'' <SUP>8</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBS is growing. ``Total operating revenues, including program
underwriting, reached $448 million in fiscal 1998, 30 percent above
fiscal 1995's $344 million.'' <SUP>9</SUP> Its operating revenue ``grew
$37 million in fiscal 1998 and $30 million in fiscal 1997, primarily
through such non-station sources as video sales, fees for educational
services, licensing arrangements and cable royalties.'' <SUP>10</SUP>
The combined $67 million growth in 1997 and 1998 and the 30 percent
increase in operating revenues occurred while funding for the CPB went
from $312 million in FY 1996 to $250 million in FY 1999.<SUP>11</SUP>
Federal funding went down and operating revenues went up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ PBS 1998 Annual Report, http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/
annualreport/index.html.
\10\ ibid.
\11\ Note that the fiscal year for PBS ends on June 30, while the
last day of the federal budget's fiscal year is September 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives and the Marketplace
There are alternatives to federal support for public broadcasting.
The realization of these alternatives may require that federal support
be withdrawn. Why would a potential financial supporter of public
broadcasting become an actual donor if there were an assurance of
government aid? A rational person would likely withhold their donation
and give it to another organization. It is plausible that federal
support is not so much a crutch toward a healthy public broadcasting
effort, but it is a handicap.
This would explain how public broadcasting grows when subsidies are
reduced. Alternative programming and content is also available. In the
last decade alone, members of this committee have sponsored legislation
to address cable television, direct satellite television, the Internet
and its content, as well as radio licensing and spectrum management.
Alternative Funding. There are alternatives to federal financing.
Recent research by George Pieler outlines the far-reaching support that
public broadcasting has within the giving-foundation community. Pieler
writes, ``of grants to PBS, CPB and NPR reported by the Foundation
Center, total 1996 grants ($18.1 million) were almost as large as
combined grants for 1994 and 1995 ($20.1 million).'' <SUP>12</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pieler, George, ``Big Bird Meets Cash Cows: Foundations,
Corporations Respond to Fear Tactics,'' Foundation Watch, Volume IV,
Number 4, April 1999, Capital Research Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPB is preparing for a time when federal subsidies are reduced,
if not eliminated. The CPB has dedicated funds to ``assist stations''
efforts to develop greater economic self-sufficiency in response to
slowing industry revenues and potential reductions in federal and other
sources of financial support.'' <SUP>13</SUP> These television and
radio ``future funds'' totaled $10,728,408 in 1998.<SUP>14</SUP> Only
two years before, the total amount spent on future funds, including
system support, was just over a half a million dollars.<SUP>15</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CPB 1998 Annual Report, http://www.cpb.org/atwork/
annualreports/1998/fin--rep.html.
\14\ ibid.
\15\ The TV future fund was $218,450, the radio future fund was
$199,772 and system support for the future funds $99,424. This
information can be found in the 1996 CPB Annual Report, http://
www.cpb.org/atwork/annualreports/1996/statementactivities.html. It is
not clear from the data provided what constitutes ``system support.''
However, it appears that approximately one fifth of the expenditures on
the future self-sufficiency of CPB affiliates was spent on overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future funds raise several questions. First and foremost, why
are federal funds at the CPB being used to plan for the future of local
stations? If the goal of this planning is to develop greater economic
self-sufficiency, what measures are being used? Is the program meeting
these measures? And if the program is successful with a particular
station, then the funding that the CPB had previously dedicated to that
station is no longer necessary. Therefore, the amount of taxpayer
subsidies to the CPB should be decreased.
If, on the other hand, there are no measures for success or if
measures exist and the ``future funds'' program is a failure, federal
funding should be decreased by at least as much as is being spent on
the program. By itself, this one commonsense change would have saved
taxpayers nearly $11 million last year.
A final note about alternative means of support for public
broadcasting: As I said before, there is some high-quality programming
available as a result of public broadcasting and it is evident that the
market would support this programming. It is ironic and a bit sad that
the greatest defenders of the value created by public broadcasting are
not found in the public broadcasting community. With every request for
federal subsidies, a quiet assertion is made: Public broadcasting is
not good enough to succeed without a handout. Public broadcasting is
better than that. Quality programming succeeds every day without
federal subsidies.
All too often we fall into a trap and act as if the policymaking
community knows better than the market how to value a product or
service. The only way to determine an economic value is to allow
consumers to choose freely in the marketplace. Consumers vote with
their dollars and through the market process. The argument that the
programming available on public broadcasting cannot be supported by
private investment reveals the thinking of its advocates.
In essence, this argument requires one of two assumptions. When you
hear this argument, take note. Its advocates believe that either the
programming is not good enough or that consumers do not know enough for
themselves about what they need and that a benevolent, federally-funded
public broadcaster can bring culture and education to them.
If the former is the case, it is a sad statement on the programming
that taxpayers have subsidized for the past 30 years. And if the latter
is the case, it is a reprehensible, do-gooder, and elitist attitude
that does not warrant the financial support of a self-respecting
American government.
Alternatives in the Marketplace. Nobel Prize winner George J.
Stigler wrote, ``a monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of
a good or service.'' <SUP>16</SUP> Whether public broadcasting enjoyed
a monopoly on programs devoted to education, arts, nature and culture
30 years ago is an interesting hypothetical question. Today, however,
the market for programs devoted to education, arts, nature and culture
is, to say the least, highly competitive. A full complement of
technologies, programs and alternatives are available. With the
exception of public broadcasting, most receive no direct subsidies from
the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Henderson, David, R. ed. ``The Fortune Encyclopedia of
Economics,'' Warner Books, New York, 1993, page 399.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following chart.<SUP>17</SUP> An analysis by Bryan
Riley at CSE Foundation found that cable television provides a
competitive alternative to the programming of public broadcasting.
Riley's analysis did not account for the hundreds of programs available
through satellite television and could not have accounted for the
Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Riley, Bryan, ``Time for Big Bird To Leave the Nest:
Privatizing Public Television,'' Budget Impact Statement No. 14, CSE
Foundation, March 6, 1995.
Washington, D.C. Viewing Choices: March 5-11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcast Time PBS Programming Cable Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 PM Sunday..................... ``The Lawrence ``Brideshead
Welk Show: Then Revisited''
and Now'' (WMPT). (Bravo)
10 PM Monday.................... ``A Hard Day's ``Great Battles of
Night'' (WETA). the Civil War''
(TLC)
10 PM Tuesday................... ``Nightly Business ``Business
Report'' (WETA). Tonight'' (CNBC)
10 PM Wednesday................. ``John Tesh Live The U.S. Navy's
at Red Rocks'' First Jet Fighter
(WMPT). (Discovery)
2:30 PM Thursday................ ``Look & Cook'' ``Yan Can Cook''
(WMPT). (TLC)
10 AM Friday.................... ``Homestretch '' ``Fitness Pros''
(WHMM). (ESPN)
6:30 PM Saturday................ ``This is Garth The Metropolitan
Brooks'' followed Opera Performs
by the Eagles in ``Tosca'' (Bravo)
concert (WMPT).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers have a wide range of choices for educational material.
Consider just a few numbers.
<bullet> Television. By 1997, televisions were in 98 percent of
American households. Thirty years ago there were three networks
but the addition of Fox and part-time networks like UPN and the
WB to the over-the-air market provide more choices and new
programming.<SUP>18</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ World Almanac, p. 188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Cable. In 1975, there were 3,506 cable systems in America. Ten
years later, there were nearly twice as many (6,600) and today
there are more than 10,000 cable systems that deliver cable
television to more than 67 percent of households.<SUP>19</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1999'', World Almanac
Books, p. 189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Cable. Two-thirds of households with income between $30,000
and $35,000 and three-fifths of households with income between
$20,000 and $30,000 have cable television in
America.<SUP>20</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table No.
916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Video. In 1998, nearly 50 million videocassettes were rented,
up from 32.3 million in 1990.<SUP>21</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Found at www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/1998/sld029.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Internet. The Department of Commerce reports that traffic on
the Internet doubles every 100 days and that the World Wide Web
is growing at twice the rate of the U.S. economy.
The wide availability of independent, unique, and community based
content may be unmatched by the Internet. In just one small sub-set of
programming--children's educational material--a quick search uncovered
web sites such as:
<bullet> Pitara.com, a site for kids with an Indian perspective that
includes poetry, stories and special features on history and
culture;
<bullet> Exploratorium.edu, a self-identified museum of science, art
and human perception; and,
<bullet> Funbrain.com, where more than 30 educational games in eight
categories are free for kids in four different age groups.
The Internet is not a substitute for Sesame Street. It is, however,
a viable alternative that has done as much as any medium to change the
marketplace for the programming that public broadcasting was created to
provide.
Recommendations
Unlike many policy issues that come before this committee, the
future funding of public broadcasting presents an opportunity for a
win-win situation. Public broadcasting is stronger without federal
subsidies. At a minimum, a decrease would change the focus of public
broadcasters toward the needs and desires of their audience and away
from the tempestuous swirl of politics. Likewise, taxpayers would win
with a reduction in the amount of government spending.
Above all else, a change in the relationship of the federal
government to public broadcasting should take into account the
incentives of public broadcasters. Creative and pragmatic ideas to
reduce federal subsidies should come from public broadcasters. These
ideas should be solicited. Any proposal should have two key
characteristics.
1. Move control of the CPB and its affiliates away from the government.
2. Decrease, to the point of elimination, federal subsidies for public
broadcasting.
All proposals consistent with these simple guidelines should be
considered. For example, if the CPB offered a proposal to make itself
independent in three years, Congress might waive spectrum fees that
result from auxiliary use of the spectrum.
The Socratic adage that the unexamined life is not worth living
might very well be applied to federal spending and the CPB. An
authorization made without consideration of CPB's financial situation
and the dramatic changes in the marketplace is an authorization not
worth making.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair is now pleased to welcome Dr. Amy Jordan, senior
research investigator for the Annenberg Public Policy Center in
Philadelphia.
STATEMENT OF AMY B. JORDAN
Ms. Jordan. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. My name
is Amy Jordan, and I am a senior research investigator at
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
Pennsylvania, and I direct research on children and television
there.
This is a topic that is not only a professional interest to
me, it has personal relevance as well. I am the mother of three
children, ages 10, 6, and 4, and over the years my family has
come to appreciate, in many ways rely on, the PBS programs that
are offered to my children.
Since 1996, the Annenberg Public Policy Center has been
tracking television for children. Each spring we conduct a
national telephone survey with 1,000 parents and 300 of their
children. We also conduct yearly consent analyses of the
children's television available in one large market,
Philadelphia, to determine whether and how children are being
served by television. And more recently we have been assessing
the impact of the FCC's processing guideline known as the 3-
hour rule.
In my comments today I will summarize the Annenberg Public
Policy Center's research on the role of television in
children's lives, the state of children's television in 1999,
and the unique and important position of PBS in the overall
landscape of children's television.
Television is a very important medium in the lives of
America's children, even in this multimedia era. Children spend
more than 2.5 hours each day watching television, and almost
half of America's children have television sets in their
bedrooms. Research in the academic community supports the
notion that good television, television that is designed to be
beneficial, really does make a positive contribution to
children's lives. Unbiased research out of top universities
indicates that such programs as Sesame Street, Barney and Mr.
Rogers' Neighborhood boost children's cognitive processing,
social skills and creativity. This research supports
developmental psychologist Dan Anderson's contention that,
quote, educational television is not an oxymoron, the way, as
Congressman Markey said, commercial public television is an
oxymoron.
Children today certainly have a vast menu of programming
from which to choose, particularly children who have cable.
Though the majority of families with children do subscribe to
cable, it is important to note that one-quarter to one-third of
America's children do not have access to cable and that
noncable homes are disproportionately disadvantaged. But having
cable does not necessarily ensure that children have access to
programs that are high-quality or educational.
Our 1999 analysis revealed that approximately a third of
cable's offerings for children were low-quality, containing
violence, sexual innuendo, stereotyping and/or harsh language.
This figure seems rather stark in comparison to PBS's
programming. Not one of PBS's programs for children fell into
that low-quality category. In fact, the vast majority of
programs were of the highest quality, contained significant
educational value, and free of problematic content child
experts worry about.
In our 4 years of research, PBS has consistently ranked No.
1 as a contributor of the largest percentage of high-quality
programs for children. No other venue, including Nickelodeon
and Disney, offer such a large quantity and quality of programs
for children as PBS.
Our findings that PBS stations offer high quality
educational programs resonates with parents who believe and
have believed since we began our polling in 1996 that public
broadcasting offers the best programming for their children.
Not only does the largest proportion of parents feel that the
best shows for children can be found on public broadcasting,
when asked to name a good show for children, PBS programs come
up more often than any others. Parents really like Sesame
Street and Barney.
Our research shows that during the last few years,
children's television in general has begun to slowly improve.
But the 3-hour rule has not yet produced sufficient broadcast
programming for children to eliminate the need for the kinds of
programs offered by PBS. Some of the commercial broadcasters'
so-called educational shows really can't be considered
educational by any reasonable benchmark. We found Jumanji
labeled as educational because characters ``survive in the
jungle by being creative and athletic.'' that was one
commercial broadcaster's educational program.
Our research shows that PBS's lineup of children's programs
makes an important contribution to the landscape of children's
television in at least two important ways. First, it serves a
unique and broad audience, not just those children who are
attractive to advertisers or who have access to cable. PBS
strives to reach audiences of all ages with age-specific
programs. Second, PBS tackles tough but important topics in
their programming, subjects that might seem too risky for
commercial broadcast networks: classic literature, science,
cultural awareness, geography and history.
In sum, the Annenberg Public Policy Center for Research
indicates that PBS is consistently dependable as a source of
quality television for children and widely trusted by parents,
advocates, and scholars who see it as a safe harbor in an
otherwise unpredictable environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Amy B. Jordan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy B. Jordan, Senior Research Investigator,
Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding H.R. 2384, The
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Authorization Act of 1999. I am a
Senior Research Investigator at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of
the University of Pennsylvania, and I direct the research on children
and television. I received my Ph.D. in Communications from the
University of Pennsylvania in 1990, and have been with the Annenberg
Public Policy Center teaching and conducting research on children and
television since 1995. This is a topic that is not only of professional
interest to me; it also has some relevance. I am the mother of three
children--ages ten, six and four. We all appreciate and enjoy PBS.
about the annenberg public policy center
The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established by
publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a
community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would
address public policy issues at the local state and federal levels.
Since 1996, the Center has been tracking the availability and
viewership of quality, educational television for children. Each
Spring, we conduct a national telephone survey of over 1,000 parents of
2- to 17-year-old children and over 300 of their children on their use
and perception of television and other media. In addition, APPC
conducts yearly content analyses of the children's television available
in one large market--Philadelphia--to determine how children are being
served by public and commercial broadcast television as well as basic
and premium cable TV. More recently, we have been assessing the
implementation and impact of the Three-Hour Rule; the FCC processing
guideline that requires that commercial broadcast stations, seeking
expedited license renewal, air a minimum of three hours a week of
educational television for children.
I will summarize the Annenberg Public Policy Center's research on
the role of television in children's lives, the state of children's
television in 1999, and the unique and important position of PBS in the
overall landscape of children's television.
television in the lives of children
Television is a very important medium in the lives of America's
children. Even in 1999--in the multi-media context of computers and on-
line access, videogames and VCRs--children spend more time with
television than they do with any other medium (on average, two and a
half hours per day). In addition, nearly half of America's children
have a television set in their bedroom (Stanger and Gridina,
1999).<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 29.4 percent of preschoolers; 46 percent of elementary school
age children and 60.2 percent of adolescents have TVs in their
bedrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many child development experts say the average child spends too
much time with television,<SUP>2</SUP> but the parents we surveyed
appear to be more concerned with what their children watch (70 percent)
than how much they watch (18.9 percent). Parents' concern over what
children can potentially see on television is reflected in the
generally negative opinion they have of the medium. Only 16.5 percent
of parents in our 1999 survey feel that there is ``a lot'' of ``good
television'' for young people. Nevertheless, most feel that television
can be a positive resource in the home, with the majority saying that
their child's television viewing does ``more good than harm.''
<SUP>3</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Stanford child expert William Damon, for example, says one and
a half hours per day should be the upper limit (Damon, 1997).
\3\ Parents of preschoolers are more likely to say that television
does more good than harm than parents of older children. 72.3 percent
of preschoolers' parents felt this way, compared to 63 percent of
elementary school age and 52.8 percent of teenage viewers' parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research in the academic community supports the notion that ``good
television''--television that is designed to be beneficial--really does
make a positive contribution in the life of the developing child.
Unbiased, carefully controlled studies on such PBS programs as ``Sesame
Street,'' ``Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'' and ``Barney and Friends''
indicate that children's cognitive processing (Collins et al., 1997),
social skills (Friedrich and Stein, 1973) and creativity (Singer &
Singer, 1983) receive a boost as a result of children's viewing of
these programs. This research supports developmental psychologist
Daniel Anderson's contention that: ``educational television is not an
oxymoron'' (Anderson, 1998).
Given the increasing evidence of the benefits of educational
television, one must consider whether parents have the choices and
information they need to be able to find enriching, age-appropriate
programming for their children.
the availability of quality television
Children today have an astonishing number of programs produced and
aired specifically for them. In the market we study--Philadelphia--
there are 29 channels offering 1,324 children's programs in an average
week (279 of these programs are unique titles). The explosion of
children's programming appears to be taking place on the cable front,
where more than half (55 percent) of programs for children are aired
(Woodard, 1999).
Over the last two decades, children's access to cable has been on
the rise. Our Spring survey indicates that the majority of families
with children subscribe to cable (77.4 percent). However, it is
important to note that nearly one-quarter of homes with children ages
2-17 do not have access to cable television. Differences in cable
access are predicted by the economic circumstances of families. APPC's
research and Nielsen data show that homes without cable are
disproportionately disadvantaged (Stanger, personal communication;
Nielsen, 1996), probably because cable television is a non-essential
monthly expense that would strain the resources of America's poorest
families.
Having cable doesn't necessarily ensure that children have access
to programs that are predictably high-quality or educational, though it
does ensure that children with cable TV have roughly twice the number
of programs from which to choose. APPC's 1999 analysis of the quality
and availability of television for children revealed that approximately
a third of cable's offerings for children were judged to be of low
quality (30 percent)--containing violence, sexual innuendo,
stereotyping and/or harsh language. This figure seems rather stark in
comparison to PBS's programming. Not one of PBS's programs for children
fell into the low quality category. In fact, the majority of programs
(80 percent) were evaluated as high quality--containing significant
educational value and gender and ethnic diversity in the characters and
devoid of problematic content that child experts worry about (Woodard,
1999). In the four years during which the Annenberg Public Policy
Center has tracked the quality and availability of programming for
children, PBS has consistently ranked #1 as the contributor of the
largest percentage of high quality programs (Jordan, 1996; Jordan and
Woodard, 1997; Jordan, 1998; Woodard, 1999). No other venue--including
Nickelodeon and Disney--offers children such large quantity and quality
of programs for children as PBS.
the state of children's television: quality, quantity and public
perceptions
Our finding that PBS stations offer high quality, educational
programs for children resonates with the parents who believe--and have
believed since we began our polling in 1996--that public broadcasting
offers the best programming for their children (Hart, 1996; Stanger,
1997; Stanger, 1998; Stanger and Gridina, 1999). Not only do they say
that the best shows for young people can be found on public
broadcasting, when parents of children ages 2-17 were asked to ``name a
show that is best for your child'', two PBS programs--``Sesame Street''
and ``Barney and Friends'' have been the most frequently cited programs
three years in a row (Stanger, 1997, 1998; Stanger and Gridina, 1999).
Television for children is slowly improving, possibly the result of
economic and regulatory forces. Annual content analyses have shown that
over the years there has been a small drop in the proportion of
programs for children that contain ``a lot'' of violence <SUP>4</SUP>;
and an increase in the number of shows that contain some enriching
content. <SUP>5</SUP> Commercial broadcasters--such as those affiliated
with Fox, ABC or WB--have begun airing three hours a week of
educational television in order to receive expedited FCC review of
their license renewal applications (Schmitt, 1999). We now see ``The
Magic School Bus,'' ``Popular Mechanics for Kids,'' and ``Pepper Ann''
on the nation's free airwaves--a direct result of the Three Hour Rule
(Jordan, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In 1998, 32 percent of programs were judged to have ``a lot''
of violence. That number declined to 28 percent in 1999.
\5\ In 1998, 46 percent were judged to have no educational value
and in 1999 that number was down to 25 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is good news for parents who try to minimize their children's
exposure to violence and encourage their viewing of potentially
enriching fare. For those who look, high quality, educational
programming can be found all over the dial and almost any time of the
day. The challenge is for parents to identify these educational
programs and direct their children to them.
guiding children to quality, educational programming: the challenge
The Three-Hour Rule has not yet produced sufficient broadcast
programming for children to eliminate the need for such programs on
PBS. The E/I icon used to identify educational programming is often
obtuse and unevenly applied. In addition, APPC's analyses revealed that
one in five programs labeled as E/I by commercial broadcast stations
could not be considered educational by the Annenberg Public Policy
Center's benchmarks. This is not a new trend. As far back as the
Children's Television Act of 1990 we have seen broadcasters creatively
re-labeling cartoons or old family sitcoms as educational. In 1994, for
example, The Center for Media Education found ``The Jetsons'' labeled
as an educational program because it ``taught children about life in
the 21st Century'' (CME, 1992). In 1999, two years into the
implementation of the Three-Hour Rule, we found ``Jumanji'' labeled as
educational because characters ``survive in the jungle by being
creative and athletic'' (Schmitt, 1999).
Until there is a market increase in the percent of homes with
children that have access to cable and until the educational
programming on broadcast stations is consistently educational, PBS is
the only place parents can turn with confidence that what their
children watch will be enriching.
the disincentives for educational television
In the absence of regulation, it seems that many commercial
broadcasters feel that it is in their financial best interest to avoid
children's educational programming. Research we conducted with
advocates, producers, advertisers, academics and network executives
prior to the passage of the Three-Hour Rule revealed an industry-wide
conventional wisdom that educational programming is perceived as less
lucrative than entertainment-only programming. The reason: educational
television must, by definition, target a narrower audience in order to
ensure that the lessons of the program are age-appropriate (Jordan,
1996). The producers of ``Captain Planet,'' for example, say the
audience for this superhero cartoon is all children ages two to twelve
(Jordan, 1998)--a large enough audience to be attractive to
advertisers. The producers of ``Bill Nye the Science Guy,'' by
contrast, say their target audience is fourth graders (Schmitt, 1999).
The conventional wisdom of the commercial television industry also
dictates that the best way to capture the largest possible audience for
advertisers is to program for boys, since, in the words of the
interviewees, girls will watch boys' programs but boys will not watch
girls' programs (Jordan, 1996). It is therefore no surprise that
commercial broadcast and cable channels are populated with male-
dominated action/adventure series such as ``Batman'', ``Spiderman,''
``Superman,''--X-Men,'' and ``Beast Wars.''
the unique contribution of pbs to children's television programming
Because PBS does not rely on the support of advertisers in the same
way as commercial broadcasters, it does not appear to abide by the
dictates of conventional wisdom. Our research shows that PBS's lineup
of children's programs makes an important contribution to the landscape
of children's television in at least two important ways: it serves a
unique and broad audience (not just those children who are attractive
to advertisers or who can afford cable); and it offers them a diverse
menu of programming (not only ``prosocial'' but also ``traditionally
academic'' educational shows).
PBS Serves A Broad Audience of Children
Content analyses indicate that PBS does not limit itself to serving
one age group or even the lowest common denominator. Unlike those on
commercial broadcast stations, PBS's programs reach children of all
ages with age-specific programs--there are preschool programs such as
``Sesame Street'' and ``Mister Rogers' Neighborhood;'' elementary
school age programs such as ``Arthur'' and ``Zoom;'' even programs for
pre-teens and teens such as ``Wishbone'' and ``In the Mix.'' By
contrast, commercial broadcasters typically ``brand'' their channel for
children of a particular age (for example, NBC focuses exclusively on
programming for the oldest children). Because commercial broadcasters
must rely on advertisers to support their children's shows (and because
advertisers prefer the largest possible audience of six-to twelve-year
olds), there are virtually no educational programs for preschoolers on
broadcast stations beyond those provided by PBS. As one advertising
executive put it in 1996: ``Two to five is not a real big target for
advertising'' (Jordan, 1996:29).
PBS's Educational Programs are Unique and Diverse
The PBS programs we have examined in our annual content analyses
typically look novel and creative when compared with the fare offered
through commercial venues. This is even the case when one compares
PBS's educational programs with the educational programs offered by
commercial broadcasters to satisfy the requirements of the Three-Hour
Rule. Though three-quarters (75 percent) of the commercial
broadcasters' educational programs are ``prosocial shows''--containing
content that addresses children's social and emotional needs (Schmitt,
1999)--PBS's shows are more varied and more likely to be tied to
traditional academic curricula. One sees PBS programs tackling topics
that might seem too risky for commercial broadcast networks: classic
literature, science, cultural awareness, geography, and history. And
unlike some of the commercial broadcasters' educational programs, these
shows are carefully researched to ensure that the message is properly
conveyed to and understood by the target audience (see, for example,
research by Milton Chen on ``Square One TV''). PBS programs work on the
development of basic letter and number concepts in preschoolers
(``Sesame Street''); offer lessons nature, wildlife and the environment
(``Kratt's Creatures''), address literacy and literature (``Reading
Rainbow'' and ``Wishbone'') and deal with complex scientific concepts
(``Bill Nye the Science Guy''). These are the sorts of programs that
were envisioned by those who crafted the Children's Television Act and
The Three-Hour Rule but only truly realized by PBS (Jordan, 1999).
conclusions
Research at the Annenberg Public Policy Center over the past four
years indicates that there are more high quality and educational
programs as a result of changes in the economic and regulatory
environment. Our four year program of research on children and
television shows that parents are most likely to cite PBS stations as
the best source of good programming for their children. When asked
about programs they encourage for their children, parents quite
frequently listed ``PBS'' (as a general station venue) or PBS programs.
In addition, when asked to name high-quality, educational programs for
children, we see in our surveys with parents and interviews with
industry insiders and observers, that PBS shows are listed more often
than any other venue of programming.
It is clear from our research that PBS is a unique and important
educational resource in the lives of our nation's children--
particularly those children who have comparatively few resources
available in the home. PBS is consistently dependable as a source of
quality television for children, and widely trusted by parents,
advocates and scholars who see it as a safe harbor in an otherwise
unpredictable environment.
Finally, if you will allow me a personal note, I am a mother who
relies heavily on PBS. It is a station that I know will offer my three
children something more than brain candy. Indeed, I am convinced that
Big Bird and Elmo and the gang at ``Sesame Street'' are responsible for
not only teaching my children their A-B-Cs and 1-2-3s but also helping
me convince them that cooperation is a win-win situation. The support
you give to CPB and PBS translates into support for the parents of
America--parents who are trying to do their best to help their children
grow into smart, caring, productive young people.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to meet with you today.
References
A.C. Nielsen. (1996) ``Top 100 Cable Television Children's
Programs.'' Special Report to the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Anderson, Daniel. (1998). ``Educational Television is Not An
Oxymoron.'' The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, Vol. 557, pp. 24-38.
Center for Media Education (1992). ``A Report on Station Compliance
with the Children's Television Act.'' Georgetown University Law Center.
Chen, Milton. (1980). ``Television, Science and Children: Formative
Evaluation for 3-2-1 Contact.'' Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 9,
No. 3 261-276.
Collins, P, J. Wright, D. Anderson, A. Huston, K. Schmitt, E.
McElroy, and D. Linebarger. (1997). Effects of Early Childhood Media
Use on Adolescent Achievement.'' Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April,
Washington, DC.
Damon, William. (1997). Remarks at The APPC Second Annual
Conference on Children and Television, The National Press Club,
Washington, DC.
Fredrich, L.K. and Stein, A. (1973). ``Aggressive and Prosocial
Television Programs and the Natural Behaviors of Preschool Children.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 38,
No. 4.
Hart Associates. (1996) ``Children/Parents: Television in the
Home.'' Survey No. 1. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, The
Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Jordan, Amy B. (1996). ``The State of Children's Television: An
Examination of Quantity, Quality, and Industry Beliefs.'' Report No. 2.
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy
Center.
Jordan, Amy and Woodard, Emory (1997) ``The 1997 State of
Children's Television Report: Programming for Children Over Broadcast
and Cable Television.'' Report No. 14. Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Jordan, Amy B. (1998). ``The 1998 State of Children's Television
Report: Programming for Children Over Broadcast and Cable Television.''
Report No. 23. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg
Public Policy Center.
Jordan, Amy B. (1999). ``The Three-Hour Rule: Insiders'
Perspectives.'' Report No. 29. Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Schmitt, Kelly. (1999). ``The Three-Hour Rule: Is it Living Up to
Expectations?'' Report No. 30. Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Singer, Jerome and Singer, Dorothy. (1983). ``Implications of
Childhood Television Viewing for Cognition, Imagination and Emotion.''
In Children's Understanding of Television, Anderson and Bryant, Eds.,
New York, Academic Press.
Stanger, Jeffrey. (1997). ``Television in the Home: The 1997 Survey
of Parents and Children.'' Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania,
The Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Stanger, Jeffrey. (1998). ``Television in the Home 1998: The Third
Annual National Survey of Parents and Children.'' Philadelphia,
University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Stanger, Jeffrey and Gridina, Natalia. (1999) ``Media in the Home
1999: The Fourth Annual Survey of Parents and Children.'' Survey No. 5.
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy
Center.
Woodard, Emory. (1999). ``The 1999 State of Children's Television
Report: Programming for Children Over Broadcast and Cable Television.''
Report No. 29. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg
Public Policy Center.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Dr. Jordan.
Finally, Mr. Graham, director of Media Analysis Research
Center here in Alexandria, Virginia.
Mr. Graham.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY GRAHAM
Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
testify on short notice. It is nice to testify on behalf of the
involuntary contributors to PBS as well as a panel of
beneficiaries.
For the last 12 years the Media Research Center has studied
the problem of liberal bias in the national media. We have over
16,000 tapes of television news programming and provide the
public with evidence when national networks have failed to live
up to their promises of objectivity and balance. Part of that
effort has involved documenting the failure of PBS and NPR news
and public affairs programming to live up to their promises,
but unlike the other television networks, PBS is instructed by
the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to provide objectivity and
balance in all programming of a controversial nature. The other
networks don't break the spirit of this law when they use their
own airwaves to favor one political party over another.
We are not here to debate whether the Democrats could offer
counterexamples to the hundreds of examples of unfairness to
conservatives. Has NPR's Nina Totenberg ever done to Democratic
Supreme Court nominees what she did to Douglas Ginsburg or
Clarence Thomas? Has WGBH's Frontline series ever suggested
that a Democratic administration conducted an illegal foreign
policy worthy of the suggestive title ``High Crimes and
Misdemeanors''?
We are not here to debate whether the Democrats could offer
many Republican names at the top of PBS or NPR, which have
resembled a revolving door of former Democratic partisans from
Ervin Duggan and Delano Lewis to Douglas Bennet and Frank
Mankiewicz. Contrary to the assertions of some congressional
staff, this left-leaning public image of PBS and NPR is not a
myth, but an image that is both well-earned and well-
documented.
The newest revelations about public broadcasting have only
deepened the public image of a PBS-DNC complex. These direct
mail deals aren't just an outrage to conservative Americans,
but to every American who expects public broadcasting to be a
public trust free of partisan manipulation. These revelations
expose the systemic failure of congressional and CPB oversight
of public broadcasting. How else can we explain that PBS
stations have been swapping direct mail names with Democratic
fund-raisers back to 1981, almost 20 years, and this is
suddenly an entirely new topic to the American people.
This erupting PBS-DNC fund-raising scandal demonstrates
what can happen when Congress and the CPB don't do enough to
lift the veil of privacy that supposedly public stations draw
around their own financial arrangements. Behind our back PBS
stations have constructed an indirect form of taxpayer finance
campaigns, at least for the Democrats, like Senator Boxer, but
the lack of oversight means the taxpayer here has been asked to
put up and shut up. If it hadn't been for that 4-year-old fan
of Barney and Friends who was asked to donate to the Democrats,
this committee would be adding a half billion dollars to the
CPB budget without a hearing like this.
This committee's efforts to authorize a substantial
increase should be halted until this full-scale investigation
can take place. This year's forward appropriation should be put
on hold until Congress is satisfied that these list-swapping
practices with Democrats and other liberal interest groups as
were reported today, Planned Parenthood and so on, have been
fully investigated, exposed and halted, and I endorse the idea
of a GAO investigation, and I hope--I guess that the IRS is
presently investigating, at least in Boston.
While CPB should be expected to probe this matter, Congress
should not count on CPB alone for results. In its confused
standing as a private corporation that distributes hundreds of
millions of tax dollars, CBS does not answer--CPB does not
answer to the Freedom of Information Act, and in its current
form CPB sees itself as a quote/unquote heat shield protecting
the public broadcasting system from the scrutiny of Congress
and the people that it represents.
Even the most extreme examples of outrageous content have
drawn only inaction from CPB. When Los Angeles public station
KFBK a couple of years ago broadcast African Mental Liberation
Weekend, which viciously attacked Jews, the president of CPB
Richard Carlson said, I believe the problems that would be
created by monitoring content--the problems created by doing
this are limitless, and I would expect despite their words here
today that their investigation of station fund-raising
practices would have the same reluctance to jeopardize these
stations' standing before congressional appropriators.
In recent days we have heard of the possibility of
outlawing public station list-swapping, but if Congress employs
that remedy, what will be the punishment? The public outrage of
these practices should not be disposed through sterile
statutory language with no more legal force than the original
mandate for balance in the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act.
Clearly these outrageous stands we have heard, these
practices we have heard of today show no fear of congressional
or CPB oversight. Boston station WGBH was swapping lists with
the Democratic National Committee at the same time that House
Speaker Newt Gingrich had pledged to zero out taxpayer funding.
Obviously WGBH, when this full story came to light, explicitly
lied to Congress and the American people. It was not a one-time
misunderstanding but at least a 5-year practice. This is not
what we have heard today, errors or stupidity. If it was
stupidity, it was decades of stupidity.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. Would the
gentleman kindly wrap?
Mr. Graham. Thank you.
I just wanted to say that we hope that Congress would
explicitly condemn individual stations for these practices and
seek some way either through Congress or through the CPB to
punish the individual stations by reducing or eliminating their
funds. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Timothy Graham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Graham, Director of Media Analysis, Media
Research Center
For the last twelve years, the Media Research Center has studied
the problem of liberal bias in the national media. We have over 16,000
videotapes of television news programming and provide the public with
evidence when the national networks have failed to live up to their
promises of objectivity and balance. Part of that effort has involved
documenting the failure of PBS and NPR news and public-affairs programs
to live up to their promises. But unlike the other television networks,
PBS is instructed by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to provide
objectivity and balance in ``all programming of a controversial
nature.'' The other networks don't break the spirit of this law when
they use their own airwaves to favor one political party over another.
We're not here to debate whether the Democrats could offer counter-
examples to the hundreds of examples of unfairness to conservatives.
Has NPR's Nina Totenberg ever done to Democratic Supreme Court nominees
what she did to Douglas Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas? Has WGBH's
``Frontline'' series ever suggested that a Democratic administration
conducted an illegal foreign policy worthy of the suggestive title
`High Crimes and Misdemeanors'? Why did PBS offer live testimony of
hearings on Watergate and Iran-Contra and not the Senate's 1997
hearings of the DNC's Chinese-fundraising scandal?
We're not here to debate whether the Democrats could offer many
Republican names at the top of PBS or NPR, which have resembled a
revolving door of former Democratic aides, from Ervin Duggan and Delano
Lewis to Douglas Bennet and Frank Mankiewicz. Contrary to the
assertions of congressional staff, this left-leaning image of PBS and
NPR is not a ``myth,'' but an image that is both well-earned and well-
documented.
The newest revelations about public broadcasting have only deepened
the public image of a PBS-DNC complex. These direct-mail deals aren't
just an outrage to conservative Americans, but to every American who
expects public broadcasting to be a public trust, free of partisan
manipulation. These revelations expose the systemic failure of
congressional and CPB oversight of public broadcasting. How else can we
explain that PBS stations have been swapping direct-mail names with
Democratic fundraisers for 20 years and it's an entirely new topic?
This erupting PBS-DNC fundraising scandal demonstrates what can
happen when Congress and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have
done very little to lift the veil of privacy that supposedly ``public''
stations draw around their own financial arrangements. Behind our
backs, PBS stations have constructed an indirect form of taxpayer-
financed campaigns, at least for the Democrats. But the lack of
oversight means the taxpayer is asked to put up and shut up.
If it hadn't been for a four-year-old fan of ``Barney and Friends''
who was asked to donate to the Democrats, this committee would be
adding a half-billion dollars to the CPB budget. This committee's
efforts to authorize a substantial increase should be immediately
halted until a full-scale investigation can take place. This year's
forward appropriation should be put on hold until Congress is satisfied
that these list-swapping practices with Democrats and other liberal
interest groups have been fully investigated, exposed, and halted.
While CPB should be expected to probe this matter, Congress should
not count on CPB alone for results. In its confused standing as a
``private corporation'' that distributes billions of tax dollars, CPB
does not answer to the Freedom of Information Act. In its current form,
CPB sees itself as a ``heat shield''--protecting the public
broadcasting system from the scrutiny of Congress or the people it
represents.
Even the most extreme cases of outrageous content have drawn only
inaction from CPB. When Los Angeles public station KPFK for two years
in a row broadcast an ``Afrikan Mental Liberation Weekend'' which
viciously attacked Jews, CPB President Richard Carlson declined to
actually monitor on-air content: ``I believe the problems that would be
created by doing this are limitless.'' I would expect their
investigators of station fundraising practices to have the same
reluctance to jeopardize the stations' standing before congressional
appropriators.
In recent days, we've heard of the possibility that public station
list-swapping with political organizations would be explicitly outlawed
by Congress. But if Congress employs that remedy, what will be the
punishment? The public outrage at these practices should not be
disposed through sterile statutory language with no more legal force
than the original mandate for balance in the 1967 Public Broadcasting
Act.
PBS stations clearly have no fear of Congress. Boston station WGBH
was swapping lists with the Democratic National Committee at the same
time that House Speaker Newt Gingrich had pledged to zero out taxpayer
funding. When this new story first came to light, WGBH officials
explicitly lied to Congress and the media by citing the list-swapping
not as a five-year practice, but as a one-time ``misunderstanding.''
Congress must explicitly condemn individual stations for these
practices and punish them by seeking to reduce or eliminate their
federal funding.
We believe that public broadcasting showcases the worst traits of a
public-private enterprise. It mixes billions in public funding with
private-sector notions of financial privacy. The recent list-swaps
underline yet another way in which public stations are used for private
gain. The proper congressional response should be vigorous efforts to
insure that public broadcasting is not just a partisan tool, being
secretly used as a tax-funded political organizing base.
But that's what it's been for 20 years or more. It's awfully hard
to claim PBS liberalism is a ``myth'' when its supporters are coveted
as top money prospects for the Democrats. This is the classic PBS way
of doing business: using a nonpartisan, tax-funded operation to feather
the Democratic nest, whether it's on-air propaganda or off-air wheeling
and dealing.
WGBH, where this expose began, is not just Boston's PBS affiliate.
It is a massive commercial enterprise, a flagship of the nation's
public broadcasting system. Conservatives know them best for putting
out ``Frontline,'' a liberal-tilting documentary series. WGBH is a
particularly blatant example of a station that doesn't need tax
dollars. It's rolling in corporate and foundation contributions. In his
new book, ``Masterpiece Theatre and the Politics of Quality,'' PBS
critic Laurence Jarvik notes that WGBH is the largest producer of
programs for the PBS system, gets over $10 million annually from Mobil,
has a total budget of over $100 million, and gets some 90 percent of
its funding from someplace other than CPB.
So why do they need to exchange fundraising lists with the
Democrats--and why would they lie? When first confronted by the
practice--when a 4-year-old ``Barney'' fan received a fundraising pitch
from the DNC when his mom contributed $40 to WGBH--the station's
spokesmen lied. Jeanne Hopkins told The Washington Times, ``we have a
policy against exchanging names with political or religious groups.
This was in violation with our own policy. It was a misunderstanding.''
But this was not a one-time mistake. The Boston Globe reported that
WGBH has been swapping names with the DNC since 1994. Five years of
misunderstandings? More to the point: It began when the station went to
the DNC for names, not the other way around.
The current status of CPB funding is especially sad, considering
the promises just four years ago that CPB was on a ``glide path'' to
zero federal funding. This seems to happen over and over again. A March
2, 1981 Time magazine article noted that the Reagan administration
aimed to reduce the CPB's roughly $160 million budget by 25 percent.
While cuts were implemented, the 1995 debate began with the reality
that the CPB budget was $285.6 million. ``Cuts'' don't last.
The CPB remains perhaps the federal government's best example of a
program that can't cry it's needy. In the 1980s, public television's
total income more than doubled, despite early Reagan budget cuts, from
$581 million in 1980 to $1.26 billion in 1990. Such an infusion of
money makes it very difficult for public broadcasters to construct
doom-laden scenarios of bankruptcy in the face of privatization.
Much of the current CPB appropriation could be made up simply by
striking better licensing deals with producers. ``Nonprofiteers'' are
making a mockery of the ``noncommercial'' nature of PBS. Forbes
recently reported that Barney the Dinosaur was the third largest
grossing entertainer in the United States, over a billion dollars, and
CPB has only raised $1.6 million from the show's producers. The big-
dollar beneficiaries actually thrive on the government seal of
approval: the Licensing Letter found that in children's TV, PBS shows
do better in merchandising than private network shows. ``Sesame
Street'' outmerchandised everything but ``Jurassic Park'' in 1993.
Ironically, that noncommercial patina means big money.
Bill Moyers, who jumped ship to NBC News at a time when his profits
could come under scrutiny, has made a small fortune off PBS Home Video
royalties, as well as book spinoffs from series like ``Healing and the
Mind'' and (ironically) ``The Secret Government.'' Asked to divulge his
profits, Moyers has proclaimed he is an ``independent businessman'' and
doesn't have to comply. For unintentional laughs, one couldn't top
Moyers, hosting the show ``Project Censored,'' asking New York Times
reporter Tim Weiner with a straight face about the Pentagon: ``Did you
find that the secrecy...actually increased the possibilities for
profiteering and fraud?''
PBS is now a lucrative avenue for intellectual product placement, a
Liberal Home Shopping Club. In the summer of 1992, ``Listening to
America with Bill Moyers'' focused two programs on liberal Philadelphia
Inquirer reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele. Their book
``America: What Went Wrong?'' became an immediate paperback best-
seller. Rolling Stone writer William Greider, who constantly decries
the corrosive effect of money on politics, hosted a two-hour
``Frontline'' special based on his book ``Who Will Tell the People,''
which also became a best-seller. (His political pull with PBS producers
and its cash value were not mentioned in the book). Exposure pays: in
the 18 months before he joined the White House staff, ``MacNeil-Lehrer
NewsHour'' commentator David Gergen earned $1 million, mostly from
speaking fees. Time on PBS is money, and PBS ought to be getting a much
better deal for its valuable national airtime.
But CPB frowns on the idea of private-sector success in public
broadcasting, striking savvy deals to offset tax dollars. Minnesota
Public Radio raised eyebrows a few years ago by plunking down $12
million for WLOL, a station in the middle of the FM dial. But CPB
President Richard Carlson complained about MPR's success with its
``Wireless'' catalogue, telling The Washington Post: ``It's damn hard
to go up on the Hill and ask for millions of dollars when they're
making millions of dollars off Beethoven T-shirts.''
The Republicans' now-forgotten intention to privatize PBS has
turned a much-needed spotlight on the public broadcasting elite's
arrogance toward congressional oversight and indifference to public
complaints. If they refuse to answer the public's demand for answers on
their questionable practices, that is an excellent reason why they
should be removed from the federal budget, so they can be accountable
to no one but themselves, the way they like it.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks all of the witnesses.
Let me first recognize myself for the appropriate 5
minutes.
Mr. Graham, I don't disagree with you. I think your
recommendations are solid. We are going to have to outlaw this
practice. I think there also needs to be sanctions. I am
disappointed that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was
not prepared to suggest that sanctions were in order when a
station violates its own publicly disclosed policy and then
lies about it, or at least discloses only part of the story in
an effort to dismiss it. I want to correct you, however. This
committee was not prepared to give another half billion dollars
to public broadcasting without appropriate review. We were
beginning a markup process in which there was going to be a
great deal of discussion as to the appropriate authorization
levels, not spending levels which are settled at the
Appropriations Committee, and perhaps it is time to straighten
that out.
The bill we offer included a 12--less than 12 percent
increase in authorization levels from the 1996 authorization,
and even that number was very much subject to amendment and
discussion by the committee. The disclosure what happened in
Boston obviously calls for additional hearings. It is a good
reason for us to be doing this today, and the gentleman from
California, Mr. Cox, asked for, and we are happy to help him,
with additional witnesses on the very subject you, Mr. Lassman,
and you, Mr. Graham, have brought to us today.
The question is what is the role of public broadcasting and
the CPB in a multimedia era where there are, in fact, many
channels of communications that were not available when public
broadcasting was first initiated.
Mr. Burns, let me turn to you and ask you to respond to Mr.
Lassman. Mr. Lassman has made a strong case that there are, in
fact, many outlets for the kind of programming that you
yourself produce. And perhaps you can comment on that. Could
you have produced the Civil War series for commercial
television if you had--would it have been different? Why did
you have to--or why did you go to public broadcasting to do it
and the other works you have produced for public broadcasting?
Mr. Burns. That is a very good question, Mr. Chairman. Let
me just state categorically there is no other place on the dial
that could have produced the Civil War series or any other
series. It is true that there are many other outlets now. There
have been for as long as I have been making films; the last 25
years there have been other things.
A couple of things. I am working on a film right now on
Mark Twain. Mark Twain said, the difference between the right
word and almost the right word is the difference between
lightning and a lightning bug. Public television to me is that
lightning. It is free of commercial interruption. I would
suggest that every one within the sound of my voice understands
the basic principle that all meaning in our lives accrues in
duration. The things that you and I are most proud of, the work
we have done, the relationships we have come from our sustained
attention, but where else do we find a completely free
attention span? For three generations now, more than three
generations of commercial television, we have insisted of our
children that they be interrupted--and not just our children,
but ourselves--that we be interrupted every 8 minutes by 6 or 8
new messages completely unrelated to the----
Mr. Tauzin. But public television is doing more than that.
Public television and radio are doing more and more, advising
us more and more that they are being underwritten by corporate
sponsors, and the corporate sponsors give us these fine
products. They are looking more and more like advertisers; are
they not?
I will let you respond, Mr. Lassman.
Go ahead, Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns. I agree there has been corporate sponsorship
acknowledgments at the beginning and end of programs, but we
are not going to the symphony or to Shakespeare to be
interrupted by those messages within the content, and that is
where PBS has held the line.
Mr. Tauzin. The big difference is simply that it is an
uninterrupted programming?
Mr. Burns. Among many, many other things. I also feel it is
free of the kind of influences that Mr. Duggan suggested to
Congressman Largent; that the variety, the patchwork quilt of
funding, not just government, but private foundations,
individuals, and corporations, that insulates us from the kind
of influence and interference that we feel and I have felt
every time I have moved outside of this oasis.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Graham would argue that there are some
influences influencing the course of NPR and public
broadcasting in general, and that they are not necessarily
always wholesome.
Mr. Graham. I think Mr. Largent's videotape showed that
this is what we have in the system. That is not something that
I think we would all sit our children down to watch. This is
the sort of thing where Mr. Markey suggests that our--he listed
all the Jerry Springer programs. If we listed what PBS
broadcast a couple of weeks ago during Gay Pride Week, Sunday,
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Point of View, they had a list of
gay rights liberation celebration programming, and it is funded
explicitly by the Government of the United States through the
National Endowment of the Arts and other Federal agencies.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Lassman, you want to respond. You all can
respond. Go ahead.
Mr. Lassman. Mr. Chairman, I have two very quick points. I
think this is a very serious issue that Mr. Burns is raising. I
will draw your attention to the fact that I got caught, and
much like many of you several weeks ago, I sat down for the
entire afternoon and watched the World Cup. I was caught up in
the hysteria. I was caught up in the excitement. It was
wonderful. There weren't commercials. It was on broadcast
television. At the top of the program, occasionally during the
middle of the program, there were announcements of who the
underwriters were.
My second point is much more serious, and I don't want to
try and outquote Mr. Burns on Thomas Jefferson, but it was
Jefferson who taught us that the enduring wisdom of America is
held in its people's hearts. And I for one think that people
can decide for themself. They know whether they are being
tricked. And it is not a matter of commercialism. It is other
sources of funding. Thank you for the time.
Mr. Tauzin. Ms. Jordan wanted to respond.
Ms. Jordan. I also want to talk about the commercial
influence on children's television. The kinds of shows that one
sees on public broadcasting versus commercial broadcast
stations are qualitatively very different in part because of
economic disincentives for educational programming on
commercial broadcast stations. We have seen through research
that in the absence of regulations like the Children'S
Television Act and the 3-hour rule, educational programming for
children disappears because by definition, educational programs
for children have smaller audiences. They need to be more
narrowly targeted, and advertisers don't like that. They also
don't like to have programs that don't have toys or other
products associated with them. So we see a much greater
diversity and a much narrower age targeting of programs on PBS
for children.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Markey?
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. You know, I
am just going to make a few observations, Mr. Chairman. First
of all, Mr. Lassman, in soccer there are no time-outs, you see.
So if they put on commercials, you would be interrupting the
game, but at half-time, they made up for it. You got a lot of
commercials at half-time in the soccer match. So it is just a
little bit different sport, and as Americans, we are just
getting used to the fact that soccer just breaks into two 45-
minute halves. And I never knew this either, but we will just
have to adjust the way we think about commercials, but they
make up for it before and after and in the middle of the game.
They do put ads up in the middle of the screen right up there
in the corner. They were keeping it going right throughout the
game.
You know, Mr. Graham, here is the thing. I know you are
just going down this litany of Democrats, but I would have
sworn that Richard Carlson, Republican, was the chairman of CPB
for 7 years. Mr. Coonrod replaced him. He was a good man. I
know he ran for mayor of San Diego as a Republican, and I know
his son, Tucker Carlson, is on CNN almost every day, and he is
a good man. But we were able to work with Mr. Carlson. I
thought that he was a very good representative of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting for all those years.
And I know that you don't want to mention the fact that
William F. Buckley has his own show on public broadcasting, or
Wall Street Week, which I really don't think you could call a
liberal Democratic program or even--and it probably
disappointed you a little bit that, you know, Mr. Burns here
and his baseball series balanced out Mario Cuomo by also having
George F. Will on as an expert.
But nonetheless, I think when you look through the totality
of the programming, especially if you look at the children's
programming from early in the morning until 6 at night, you are
hard-pressed really. I am sure there are isolated instances
that tick people off, by the way, on both sides, not one. But
on the totality of the programming, I think people just think
of it as high-quality science, art, news, children's
programming, with a little bit of stuff once in a while that
ticks people off. But they don't want this thing cut. They
don't want it eliminated. They don't want Big Bird put out
there and fried on a skillet and left to fend for themselves in
the open market. I don't think that is what this is all about.
You know, maybe you guys don't remember the history of
this, but the Federal Communications Commission back in 1983
took all the rules off the books that said that commercial
broadcasters had to have children's programming every week, and
you know what happened once the free market was able to
determine whether or not they were going to put on any
educational programming for children? They just dropped it for
the most part. They said, we just can't make money doing this.
We can't pull this off. And so in 1990, this committee and the
Congress, we had to pass another law, the Children'S Television
Act, that ultimately has been implemented to say that each
commercial station has to put on 3 hours a week. Remember, PBS
has on about 12 hours a day, not the 3 hours a week, and they
do it under a Federal mandate; that is, the commercial
broadcasters.
And in addition, again I have to keep coming back to this
point, we agree there is a lot of great children's programming
on cable. Nickelodeon's great. Discovery is great. But 35
percent of the children in America live in homes that do not
have cable. Moreover, those children tend to skew much younger
and poorer than the children in middle-class and upper-middle-
class America. As we reach a day when the industrial age is
ending and the information age, the new economy is unfolding,
it is clear that as a counterpart to voting for GATT and NAFTA
and this global trade which quickly erodes the older industrial
base in our country, that we have a responsibility to ensure
that we are giving every child, regardless of income,
regardless of ethnicity, access to the skill set that helps to
democratize access to information and job skills and jobs
ultimately in this new economy.
That is what PBS is all about. It is recognizing that the
bottom third may not have as much access to this cornucopia of
programming, excellent as it may be, which is on cable, but
just not affordable for many Americans.
So, you know, when you are making your presentation,
whether it be Democrat/Republican, or liberal/conservative or
cable versus broadcast, you have to make these distinctions.
You have to be clear that you are presenting the totality of
the programming and the access to it, because I love William F.
Buckley, and I love Ruckheyser, and I love all of that. I have
watched it since I was a boy, and I have learned from it, but I
don't believe in any way that my mind was poisoned because I
heard a different point of view that my mother or father were
giving me, which were hard-core blue-collar Democrats. It just
exposed me to other ideas. But my fundamental grounding
ultimately, the educational basis, the base that my parents had
given me, allowed me to understand this larger context, this
larger world that was being created on PBS for free, for the
children of the blue-collar and the poor in America.
So I just make that again as a statement, Mr. Chairman, and
I hate to get up here and keep doing that, but we have got to
set the right context so that people understand what this
debate is really all about. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's statement time has expired.
Mr. Sawyer. What happened to I Love Lucy?
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair will allow any witness who wishes to
respond briefly, and then I have to move on.
Mr. Graham. Mr. Markey, the reason my statement said we
weren't here to debate this, because if we were here to debate
this, we would be here for a long time.
Mr. Markey. But like Cicero, you raise all of the
complaints and said, of course I will never raise these issues,
and you leave it out here unanswered.
Mr. Graham. This is a concern which conservative taxpayers
do not feel they get the time----
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Markey. Brother Earl told me never allow a Ciceronian
presentation to go unanswered.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair has
been trying to be generous and allow the witnesses to respond
to him, but we can't get into this, or we can't move on.
Any other gentleman or the lady wishes to respond to Mr.
Markey?
Mr. Graham. I simply disagree with his statement. That is
the whole issue. It is not just the bias and the content, but
the bias now that is represented by WGBH trading lists with the
Democrats. What it shows you naturally here is that the public,
the audience of PBS, the donors of PBS are a naturally liberal
audience. As the Congressman from Wyoming pointed out, we have
no idea who these Republican groups are that supposedly are
trading lists with WETA, but we know these audiences are
natural fund-raising targets for liberal organizations. It just
proves to you that liberal garbage out, liberal garbage in.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Lassman you want to make a final comment?
Anyone else?
Mr. Burns for five.
Mr. Markey. That is a Pat Buchanan characterization that
Bob Dole is a liberal.
Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in public
television for 20 years, and for 20 years I have lived in the
conservative State of New Hampshire. I have not seen the
evidence of the vast conspiracy that Mr. Graham has described
today. In fact, I have seen in many instances the opposite, not
just the many fine programs that Congressman Markey mentioned,
but a general sense among many of my colleagues in the
filmmaking community that PBS is a rather conservative
institution that is afraid of the kind of new ideas that I
agree completely with Mr. Markey that any public debate,
particularly in a free country, ought to be not only tolerant
of but welcoming of.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Oklahoma for questions. Mr. Largent.
Mr. Largent. I would like to say at the beginning of my
comments by saying I am a fan and consumer of your product. It
is a very good one. I appreciate it.
Mr. Burns. My daughters thank you as well.
Mr. Largent. But I want to ask you some questions about
your testimony, because one of the things that you said is
that, first of all, you said you didn't think that you could
have produced a Civil War documentary any other way than the
way you in fact did. And yet also in your testimony, you said
it was the most widely viewed PBS series in history. That
doesn't seem to make sense because advertising dollars follow
the consumers.
Mr. Burns. I think in some ways they have reacted to the
success of the Civil War and have now gone to places--not just
to public television where, of course, history has grown leaps
and bounds in the last two decades, but they have gone to other
outlets. I would suggest that many of these fares are thin, and
because they are interrupted by commercials, less effective
than the Civil War.
I think the Civil War was successful for a number of
reasons not the least of which is that this is the great trauma
in the childhood of the Nation, and we all stopped for a second
to consider who we were. But I think it was the public
television environment. I couldn't get anyone to even listen to
me for the years it took me to produce that film, or indeed the
7 or 8 documentaries I made before that. I couldn't even get in
the door.
Mr. Largent. But you wouldn't have that same problem today.
Mr. Burns. No, but I would not be my own master. What
public television is not is this vast Federal monolithic thing
imposing a Federal view of how Americans should see themselves
on TV, but the sum total of all the programming. What public
television allowed me to be was myself; that is to say
unfettered by some producer who is going to say make it sexier,
make it longer, make it shorter, make it less violent, make it
more violent.
Mr. Largent. Let me ask you this question. It didn't appear
that General Motors fettered you at all, and they underwrote
Civil War, didn't they?
Mr. Burns. They provided approximately 30 percent of the
budget.
Mr. Largent. Did you feel fettered?
Mr. Burns. Not at all.
Mr. Largent. Why not?
Mr. Burns. Because the way public television is set up by
its business affairs practices prevents General Motors, indeed
any underwriter, from affecting the content. But that is not
true once you have entered into the commercial realm where a
sponsor--as you know, through the long history of television,
sponsors have exerted tremendous pressure in every way, and we
have a phrase in film making which we call LCD, lowest common
denominator. The reason why I am in public television and will
stay in public television for as long as it is public
television is because we do not pander to the lowest common
denominator, and that, at the end of the day, allows me to do
the kind of work that I think reaches you. If I had gone
another route, I don't think you would have seen the same
quality thing. I don't think you would have felt it or been
obliged to come back or to comment favorably.
Mr. Largent. Let me follow up with that and say what I am
trying to do is enhance public television, but not doing it on
the backs of taxpayers, and I think there is a way to do that.
There is a middle road, I think, that we can find here that
doesn't interrupt programming, which is a convenience and is an
issue, but at the same time takes the attractiveness of
programs that you do and others and fuses some commercial
dollars without the LCD factor thrown in there.
Mr. Lassman, you had a comment?
Mr. Lassman. Mr. Largent, I would ask you to imagine with
me a private setting, not a commercial setting, but a private
setting, just as my home is private. It is not a commercial
place to go. And public broadcasting in America can become
something of a United Way, collecting and raising and
distributing private funds. The difference is that a United Way
doesn't rely on taxpayer dollars and that Good Housekeeping
stamp of approval that says to General Motor,s this is a
quality product, it will meet its deadlines. We have some
oversight that can still be done in a private way, and that
middle ground, I encourage you to seek it out.
Mr. Largent. Well, that is a good analogy, but it is not
entirely true. Having served with United Way for a number of
years, that is not an exactly accurate picture of what takes
place.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just have a little more time here.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Largent. Mr. Burns, I guess I just wanted to conclude
by saying that, you know, there is a strong support across the
aisle, both sides of the aisle, for, Corporation of Public
Broadcasting, but we are looking to try to find a way to
enhance the product without just simply increasing taxpayer
subsidization of that, and I think at the end of the day we
might be able to find that middle road, and I would encourage
you to help us through that process.
With that I would just would yield back my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burns. Mr. Largent, I would love to be involved and
feel that I am involved in that conversation, in that working
out, in that debate, but I really wanted to stress again that
this is really a unique system, and while 14 percent of the
public television's budget comes from the Federal Government, a
great deal more of my budgets do, and I would not be able to
make the films without that kind of support.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Dingell is recognized.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graham, I enjoyed your comments very much, and I wanted
to thank you for them. I particularly noted your comments seem
to indicate a great deal of outrage at the fact that the lists
were traded or sold. Is that correct?
Mr. Graham. That would be our understanding.
Mr. Dingell. And you also expressed a great deal of outrage
that they were traded with Democratic organizations. Is that
right?
Mr. Graham. In this case, the Democratic National
Committee. The Republican organizations were still waiting to
figure out if they exist.
Mr. Dingell. I noted that Mr. Dole, his committee, was one
which exchanged lists. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Graham. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Dingell, the Dole
search happened after the Boston Globe story in May. That is my
present understanding.
Mr. Dingell. Let's just understand. You either are outraged
that Mr. Dole exchanged lists with public broadcasting, or you
are not. Which is the case?
Mr. Graham. What I am saying to you is that if this list
was offered to your average conservative fund-raiser, they
would not exchange it, because it is not a lucrative list for a
conservative fund-raiser.
Mr. Dingell. It just said--I just note that Mr. Dole's
campaign exchanged lists. Bob Viguerie fund-raiser superfile.
Are you outraged about them exchanging lists? Conservative
Republican superfile exchange, golden age Republicans exchanged
lists, Republican Party builders exchanged lists, and great
American donors. I assume you are not outraged about them?
Mr. Graham. I am familiar with Mr. Viguerie. I am not
familiar with any of the others, so I can't tell you whether
those organizations, whether they have the Republican in the
title are actually conservative fund-raisers or not. The point
being that this is a practice----
Mr. Dingell. Are you outraged if those groups exchanged
lists with public broadcasting, or are you not?
Mr. Graham. I am saying yes.
Mr. Dingell. You are. Up until now, I got the impression
that your outrage was the fact that there had been exchanges
with Democrats.
Mr. Graham. It is my understanding that the Republican
National Committee has exchanged no list. You found in your
questioning earlier there were no major Republican
organizations keeping----
Mr. Dingell. Please keep your red herrings at the committee
table. I am talking about----
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman controls the time. Mr. Dingell
knows how to control the time. The gentleman Mr. Dingell has
the time.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you.
Can you tell us whether you are outraged about these lists
being exchanged with these groups that I have just mentioned?
Mr. Graham. I said that I believe it is wrong for public
broadcasting to switch its lists with any partisan
organization. What I am also saying is----
Mr. Dingell. All right. Now let's talk about you. Do you
exchange your lists with partisan organizations?
Mr. Graham. I imagine that our organization relying on
direct mail would do list exchanges, but not with Federal
agencies or audiences of Federal television.
Mr. Dingell. You're a 503(-c), are you?
Mr. Graham. Right.
Mr. Dingell. That means that you are tax-exempt?
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. And not only are your activities tax-exempt,
but your donors' contributions are tax-exempt?
Mr. Graham. Correct.
Mr. Dingell. So you are outraged about the fact that CPB
gets a subsidy from the Federal Government. You get a subsidy
from the Federal Government, too, by being tax-exempt.
Mr. Graham. I pay taxes.
Mr. Dingell. Are you outraged about that?
Mr. Graham. I am outraged that I pay taxes that goes to
WGBH, who trades lists with the Democrats. There is a
difference between conservative groups trading lists with each
other and federally subsidized stations doing it with the
Democrats. There is a difference.
Mr. Dingell. But they traded--I note here that they traded
with Dole. Now, Mr. Dole, if my memory serves me correctly, was
a Republican candidate for President. Bob Viguerie is a well-
known conservative Republican, conservative Republican
superfile. Now, it may perhaps be that you should be outraged
that the country club Republicans have been exchanged. And the
golden age Republicans, they obviously are dupes of the liberal
fronts. But it seems to me that there is a dichotomy in your
statements that I am having a hard time understanding.
Now, if I were to make a contribution, a tax-exempt one of
$75, according to your Web sites, I would receive, amongst
other things, a bumper stick that declares John Dingell to be,
and I quote, a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy;
is that correct?
Mr. Graham. That is correct.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. He asked for
an additional minute. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Graham. And he may join the conspiracy.
Mr. Dingell. Could you tell me whether that is a political
statement?
Mr. Graham. That is a political statement.
Mr. Dingell. Political statement. And it is subsidized by
taxpayer dollars by making you tax-exempt.
Mr. Graham. Yes. I am not exchanging a list with WGBH.
Mr. Dingell. You have indicated earlier that you objected
strongly to the fact that CPB should be tax-exempt.
Mr. Graham. I think what we said--I think what I said in my
statement was that CPB needs to do a better job of accounting
for these sorts of activities. I don't think I referred
necessarily to the tax exemption of CPB. I did complain about
the Freedom of Information Act exemption that they seem to
have.
Mr. Dingell. I see.
Mr. Chairman, you have been most kind. It has been a most
enlightening discussion. I want to thank Mr. Graham for
clarifying his position and for certain continued obfuscations.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I hope you get your bumper sticker. It might
explain why Bob Dole lost. He bought the wrong list.
The gentlelady Mrs. Cubin is recognized.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in a
very difficult position on this issue, and I guess it wouldn't
be an issue if there weren't multiple sides.
Let me tell you what I think about this and ask for some
answers and some help. I think most of you probably heard
Heather Wilson's opening statement about the situation between
the geographics and the demographics in rural areas,
particularly in areas where there are a high level of poverty
in Indian reservations and so on, and the access to television
through the cable and through satellites, and some places that
public television is the only thing that is available. My
district is very much like Mrs. Wilson's, only more rural. And
so I really accept the need for something like--or for PBS.
I agree that what's available for arts and culture and
education for children has changed since 1967, though, and like
Mr. Largent said, I am not sure that there isn't a better way
to expand it. But the concern that I have, while we can look at
the goods of this type--good qualities, I should say, of this
type of broadcasting when there are abuses, and I absolutely
believe there have been abuses, then it is bad, and it
jeopardizes the entire system, just as it has right now, with
people sitting here wondering what the Congress is going to do
and you know, some of those abuses.
With all due respect to Dr. Jordan, her testimony stated
that her studies or that their studies showed that children's
educational programs for PBS was age-specific and appropriate,
and that there was not inappropriate sexual content, but when I
saw the video that Representative Largent showed us, I have to
tell you I don't think that it was age-specific for 5- and 6-
and 7-year-olds to be hearing about the gay lifestyle, and I
don't think that it is appropriate sexual content when they are
talking about a soccer ball, and I bet those poor kids had no
idea what gay even meant.
So there are abuses. Obviously another abuse is--at least
in my opinion--is the political trading of these lists. Whether
it is Republican or whether it is Democrat, I don't care. I
have trouble viewing the DNC as equivalent to any of the
organizations that were named that received or that traded
lists. So I want to preserve the access to areas, especially
rural and poor areas. I want to preserve the type of
programming that you, Mr. Burns, talked about, uninterrupted
and unfettered by someone else in what you do. I think there is
definitely a role for them and a place for that in this country
today. I am not sure it is the structure that we currently
operate under.
My opinion is we need to smack the heck out of people--not
out of people, but those stations. We need to smack the heck
out of the ones who have abused this, whether it is the people
who put on the programming like the video that we saw, or
whether it is the stations that traded lists, and I want to ask
you, Mr. Graham, what kind of punishments should there be for
those? Because I see that as protecting the system in the first
place and also respecting the opinions of people who have a
different opinion than what I agree to be the liberal bias of
the public broadcasting system.
Mr. Graham. Sure. And I think it is important to sort of
address Mr. Markey's idea that conservatives complaining about
liberal bias are somehow afraid of liberalism. I think really
what they are saying, if there is going to be a diverse
channel, that we would see more conservative voices. And they
always bring up Firing Line at 2 on a Saturday afternoon, which
really isn't even on the direct feed, and compare it to their
blockbuster programs like WGBH.
I think that, as Mr. Oxley pointed out today, these
stations that we are talking about smacking the heck out of are
the most successful, largest public television stations in the
country. WETA in Washington, WGBH in Boston, WNET in New York,
these are--they produce the majority of the programming that
people see, and so--and they are the ones that probably are the
ones that are least needy when it comes to the Federal
appropriation.
But it seems to me that the only way we can reach through
this system is to say CPB awards these people Federal funds
through community service grants, et cetera? I don't know. We
have a system right now where there is not a direct
appropriation from Congress to the station. There is an
appropriation to CPB. CPB appropriates to the stations, and as
I said earlier in my testimony, you can have a raving wake of
antisemitism, and the funding for these specific stations has
stayed the same because how can Congress--Congress can't do
anything about that.
That is what Ken Burns wants. He wants a system where he
wants to be the master, and the American people who pay for it
aren't the master. They have no say over what programming goes
on television, and I think--so there has to be an
investigation, and there has to be some sort of way we can
punish the individual stations through the funding mechanism. I
don't know if there is any way it can be done in the present
system. That is the problem that we are addressing in
testimony.
Mrs. Cubin. I have to say that what I feel, I think, the
worst about is rather than CPB saying, this is wrong, here's
what we are going to do about it, and we are going to do
something, that the supporters seem to say it is okay, or
because the service is so good, the service that is provided is
so good, that the tactics are okay. I don't think that is true.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentlelady's time has expired. Any witness
that wants to respond to her may do so.
Mr. Lassman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin, what I have heard today, especially in your
last comment, is broad consensus on ends. Many of us agree on
the programing for what it may be, that it should be out there.
We differ on the means. And we have talked specifically about
the means through a funding process. I want to challenge you to
think with me about a means in a different way, and rather than
proposing public policy to fix it, and rather than going
forward and making some sort of new policy in this committee
and in this Congress, it is possible to lift things off and to
pull back, and I recommend to you to get very involved in the
work that comes before this committee on data transfer and more
the telecommunications side of things.
Broadcast technologies are more than 100 years old.
Satellite, direct satellite, cable, telephone wires, the
electrical grid, cable, again these technologies can deliver
voice. They can deliver video. They can deliver sound,
everything. And what we are talking about on the other half of
this committee, subcommittee, is how do we move regulations off
of the firms that want to come in and provide service. It is
not just broadcasters.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair now is pleased to welcome the
gentleman from Ohio Mr. Sawyer for a round of questions.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to tell you I have enjoyed the exchange. I can't say
that I agree with you, Mr. Graham, but you bring a vitality to
this discussion that is healthy, and I think it is good that
you and Mr. Markey had the opportunity to share with one
another as you did.
Let me ask Mr. Burns to comment on one of your concerns
that you expressed in your last comments, and that was that Ken
Burns wants to be the master, as though this was a negative
desire, something that would be damaging to the quality of
product that the public is exposed to. Would you care to
comment on that, Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. I was just trying to express as a craftsman, as
an artist, how one would want to do one's work. But I think you
also have to realize that we submit to rigorous oversights in
all of these projects, oversight that is never required in any
marketplace situation that I know of. That is the oversight of
historical consultants. I get a good deal of my funding, or
have until funding was severely cut back, from the National
Endowment of Humanities, which required rigorous proposals.
I am currently working on a history of jazz. The proposal
went to 400 pages, and they have given us for our Civil War
series 30 percent of our budget. Now it is about 6 percent of
our budget, but we were willing to submit our entire project to
those kinds of historical scholarly controls. We work with
other artists, other writers that influence that. But at the
end I wanted to be free of those kind of mercantile decisions
that seem to always leave one with a bad taste, of length, of
sexiness, of violence, of commercial interruptions, all of
those sorts of things, and I have stepped out, I have moved and
explored opportunities in other realms and have come back
instantly to public television as literally an oasis where I
can do the work that I want to do.
And this sort of sense--we are the sum total of all of the
programs that we have made, not the mistakes of a few people,
and I agree with everyone here, this is a terrible mistake, but
the public trust has invested in the quality of those programs.
Let me just repeat, this is the best children's
programming. What could be more important? The best children's
programming among hundreds of channels. This is the best news
and public affairs, balanced. Everyone would agree, from CEOs
to farmers in the Midwest. This is the best history, the best
science. These are the high-rated programs. The program, Mrs.
Cubin, that you brought up that Representative Largent showed
is not, in fact, a public-television-sponsored program, from
what I understand, and I am more worried about my daughters
being exposed to the much more outrageous issues than that one
finds daily in the kind of listing of programs that Congressman
Markey brought up in his opening remarks many hours ago.
Mr. Sawyer. Let me just make an observation, Mr. Chairman.
We keep talking about the great asset of public television
being its quality, and it has produced quality. But it seems to
me that the greatest asset that it brings over the last 30
years has been the capacity to experiment, to let people who
are indeed, to the degree that they can, be their own master,
bring their product, and let it compete in an environment where
being free of commercial interruption is nice, but being free
of commercial pressure is critical. And it is the ability to
bring to a viewership, that may not have been yet developed and
proven in the marketplace, a product that will develop that
audience. It is as much as anything a freedom to fail in that
environment, to fail in the commercial environment--in a test
of audience as it is to succeed with it. The freedom to fail
just does not exist in the commercial environment. You make
money or die.
Mr. Burns. If I may respond, this is a system that is very
much like our Federal and our public political system. I think
today we have been dealing with the tensions between States
rights and the Federal, how much control these guys have over
all of those individual States. But it also reflects us, and so
it is necessarily going to reflect some of us at different
extremes, at different times and be abhorrent, perhaps, to some
of us at different times or turn us off at different times or
make us angry. But for the most part I have noticed in 25 years
of being very much involved but utterly independent from this
system that it is reflecting us in all our diversity.
Henry Adams said in the middle of the 19th century, there
are grave doubts at the hugeness of the land and whether one
government can comprehend the whole. It is a great anxiety that
has come down to us in this late 20th century, too, and I feel
that there are very few institutions that are able to if not
comprehend the whole, that make a good attempt to do that.
And it sometimes fails. I agree, Congresswoman, and that is
part of it. I think the ability to fail is built into that
system, just as it is into our political system, but that is
our strength.
This is a system that 80 percent of Americans tune into at
least once every month. It is supported by 70 percent of
Republicans and 80 percent of independents and 90 percent of
Democrats. There is just a few of us, Mr. Graham included, that
don't find value in this system, and that is a wonderful thing,
and I love the fact that my public television is a complicated
and diverse mirror of who we all are.
And, yeah, we will make mistakes, just as we all do in the
political process here, but we are out front here. We are
saying, boy, we made a mistake here, but judge us by the
quality of those programs and free us, liberate us, from the
tyranny of this perpetual fund-raising nightmare that leads us
down these ridiculous alleys and makes the kind of mistakes
that these people have so clearly made.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
will take a little liberty as we wrap up the session today, and
I will invite any other comments the members want to make.
First I want to recognize the vice chairman of the full
committee Mr. Gillmor, who is present, and I want to
acknowledge his presence with us today.
First of all, we are dealing in a free-speech society with
an institution that receives Federal funds to speak to us,
Federal taxpayer dollars, not dollars surrendered voluntarily,
surrendered under an extraction system called the IRS and
brought here to Washington and spent to speak to us. It is
because public broadcasting has that special role in a free-
speech society that it comes under all these kinds of tensions,
I think. Is it speaking to us in a way that is objective? Is it
speaking to us in a way that is unbiased? Is it speaking to us
in a way that is uncompromised by the political processes that
might compromise it from the right or the left? And the trust
that Americans have that public broadcasting does so, Mr.
Burns, in all the eloquent ways that you have described that it
ought to and very often does speak to us, the trust that it
will continue to do so is literally on the table before us
today, and it has been damaged. It is like a patient who had
been bleeding for a little while, and I suspect until this
investigation is over, there will be more blood spilled as we
find out that not 53 stations, but 60 and 70 and perhaps a heck
of a lot more have been guilty of trading the names of its
subscribers away to others to use for political purposes or
what have you.
When we began the process of reauthorization, Mr. Markey
and I had hoped that we could have a full discussion of public
broadcast reform. We hoped we could really engage the Congress
into deciding which of the schizophrenic type of approaches we
have taken to public broadcasting was the correct one, whether
we ought to fund it more and make it less commercial, or
whether we ought to free it for more Federal funding and let it
go its own way, as some of you have suggested.
In the context of those reforms, we talked about the
possibility of a trust fund set up somehow that public
broadcast viewers would not be constantly seeing
advertisements, that public broadcasters would not constantly
have to try to imitate commercial broadcasters in their
programs. It wouldn't be competing against commercial
broadcasters for advertiser dollars or commercially viable
products in the marketplace. It quickly became apparent to us
that the commercial television world nor the public television
advocates were prepared for that discussion.
It is important we talk about the commercial television
world in that discussion. The commercial television world is
being told by Mr. Markey in his 1990 act to do some public
things. Educational television. It is as though we don't have
public broadcasting doing it. We need the commercial world
doing it, too, under public mandate, determined on a quality
basis. And so we had hoped to have that discussion, whether it
was really the role of commercial broadcasters to do that
business, or really was it the role of public broadcasting; and
if it was the role of public broadcasting, could we allow
public broadcasting to become more and more commercialized and
less and less what it was intended to be. We are not going to
obviously have that full discussion, but we are going to
obviously have some discussion as we move this process forward.
My intention initially was to bring out a simple
reauthorization bill, to define the maximum limits in the
reauthorization bill of what Congress could appropriate to
public broadcasting. Not to appropriate. I make that clear, Mr.
Graham; define the maximum limits. That was all we were going
to do, and this committee was going to settle where those
maximum limits were. We started with the request of Public
Broadcasting Corporation. We started with their request, and we
suspected that request would come under some very good and
useful and productive debate. We would end up passing a
reauthorization bill, the likes of which we had passed in 1996,
which would set some limits for the appropriators to go
forward. We thought it was critical to do it because public
broadcasting faces the same challenge that commercial
broadcasters face in migrating into a digital world, and what
are they going to look like in a digital world? Can they
multicast? Will they be permitted to multicast or simply pass
through programming? We thought it important to begin that
debate.
And then this scandal erupts of public broadcast stations
engaged in the process of trading away the confidential names
and addresses and heaven knows what other personal information
about their subscribers to anyone, Mr. Graham, anyone and
several consequences enter into that.
One, let me suggest to all of you who are here who were
part of the first panel and may still be representing the first
panel. I don't think this committee is going to report a bill
that says you can sell or exchange your lists to anybody other
than political people. I think it is going to say, stop selling
or exchanging your lists. So get ready for that. I don't think
this committee is going to likely say that we are not going to
punish all the public broadcasting for the sins of a few or of
the many who may end up being guilty, but we are going to let
those people go free, too. I think there is going to be some
sanctions imposed somewhere in here, and think there is going
to be some very clear language about what public broadcasting
can and cannot do when it comes to associating with political
parties, if that isn't clear enough already.
I suspect Mr. Stearns' idea of some sort of watchdog public
interest body to make sure that public broadcasting stays
within the channels of its mandate, that it doesn't, in fact,
become an arm, a vessel or a microphone for any political party
or interest in this country is probably going to happen,
something in the legislation. And I should think we are going
to have a debate, as Mr. Largent has pointed out, as to whether
or not we are going to move to more commercialization or less
commercialization, as to whether or not we let public
broadcasting depend less on Federal funds and more on
commercial dollars, and what effect that has on public
broadcasting.
So we are in for a series of pretty interesting debates
now, and maybe that is good. Maybe that is timely. Maybe it is
about time it happens. In that regard, we are going to have
another hearing in which we are going to invite people who
present programming like public broadcasting to come and tell
us their story about what they are doing in this modern age,
and how they can reach kids with educational programs, and what
they are doing to inform and educate and render the kind of
cultural statements that we ought to be rendering about
ourselves if we are going to understand the whole of our
society, as Mr. Burns pointed out.
So we are going to hear the counterclaims, and then we are
going to begin a good debate, and this committee will make
hopefully some good decisions. I don't know how it is going to
turn out, but I invite you all, I particularly invite the
commercial broadcast community if you are within my ear range,
cable interests, all of you to be thinking about your
particular role in this exercise. If we tell public
broadcasting you no longer depend upon Federal funds at some
point, you are on your own, then what will we require of
commercial broadcasters and cable companies when it comes to
educational programs, for example? If we tell public
broadcasting, you no longer rely upon Federal funds, will we
have any right to tell them to quit trading the names of their
citizens to anybody or to conduct themselves in a way that is
bipartisan or not biased? Do we take us down that trip, that
road, and do we like the result?
There will be some good discussions, and to the extent that
you have helped us and started us along that path, I want to
thank you all today. We appreciate your testimony.
Any final comments by any other members? The hearing stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 58506.057