U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

58–506CC WASHINGTON : 1999

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

(

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

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,

Vice Chairman

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

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)

(1)

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

2

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

3

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 noncommercial 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

4

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 proVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
5

gram 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:]

6

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:]

7

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 onehalf 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:]

8

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:

• The great number of American children who learn from the characters on Sesame

Street, Barney, Arthur and the Teletubbies • The great number of Americans who receive their news via NPR or the Leher

News Hour, and • 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

9

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. BurVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
10

ton, 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

11

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 partVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
12

ner 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

13

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, KBYUTV, 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,

14

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 nonprofit 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.

15

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

16

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.

17

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:

• The first national broadcast of a television program shot and edited in high definition—CHIHULY OVER VENICE, from KCTS Seattle;

• The first broadcast of a program with enhanced digital content—FRANK LLOYD

WRIGHT, from WETA Washington and Florentine Films;

• The first national program to inform general audiences about digital television—

DIGITAL TV—A CRINGELY CRASH COURSE, from Oregon Public Broadcasting; and

• 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.

18

A Public-Private Partnership

Mr. Chairman, public television in America operates mostly on funds from nonfederal 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.

19

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.

20

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.

21

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

22

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, All Things Considered, Performance Today, 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 programVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
23

ming 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

24

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 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. 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.

25

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 manmade 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.

26

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.

27

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.

28

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

29

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 misVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
30

sions. 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

31

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.

• 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.

• 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.

32

• 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 longterm 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.

33

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.

34

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

35

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 Vchip 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

36

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

37

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 publicaccountability 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

38

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

39

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 cosigned 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:]

40

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

41

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

42

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.

43

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.

44

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.

45

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 noncommercial 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.

46

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.

47

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

48

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 chilVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
49

dren. 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.

50

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 passthrough 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

51

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.

52

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

53

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.

54

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

55

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.

56

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, coauthored 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

57

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

58

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

59

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 twothirds 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

60

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.

61

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

62

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.]

(63)

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

64

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.

65

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

66

an electronic oasis for learning and information in what has been

called the vast wasteland of commercial television. Free over-theair 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 genderbending 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.

67

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.

68

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

69

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 surVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
70

prise 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

71

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

72

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.

73

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,

74

‘‘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 selfevident 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

75

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 subVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
76

stantial 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.

77

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 Republicanleaning 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.

78

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.

79

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

80

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 programrelated 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 culVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
81

tural 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 approVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
82

priate, 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

83

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 backdrop 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

84

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.

85

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.

86

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 conVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
87

done 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

88

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

89

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

90

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.

91

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:]

92

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.

93

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

94

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

95

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

96

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

97

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——

98

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 passthrough 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 fundraising. 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.

99

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.

100

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——

101

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.

102

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.

103

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 requireVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
104

ment 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

105

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 fundraising 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?

106

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?

107

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?

108

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.

109

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?

110

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 proVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
111

vides. 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 timehonored 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.

112

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

113

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

114

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.

115

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 authorVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
116

ization. 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 wellknown. 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

117

1Lewis, Tom, ‘‘Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio,’’ HarperCollins, 1991, New York,

page 364. 2 CSE Foundation does not receive any funds from the U.S. Government.

$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.’’ 1 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.

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.2

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

118

3For 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. 4See 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.

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.3

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.4 The legisla- tion 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.

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

119

5 CPB 1998 Annual Report, http://www.cpb.org/atwork/annualreports/1998/fin—rep.html.

6PBS 1997 Annual Report, http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/annualreport1997/highlights.html.

7 ibid.

8 ibid.

9PBS 1998 Annual Report, http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/annualreport/index.html.

10 ibid.

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.5 At the very least, past appropriations and other revenue

streams should be considered as decisions are made about federal funding.

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.6 Yet, the FY 1997 operating revenues were up a total of $47

million over FY 1996, an increase of 23 percent.7

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.’’ 8

PBS is growing. ‘‘Total operating revenues, including program underwriting,

reached $448 million in fiscal 1998, 30 percent above fiscal 1995’s $344 million.’’ 9

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.’’ 10 The combined $67 million

growth in 1997 and 1998 and the 30 percent increase in operating revenues ocVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
120

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. 12Pieler, George, ‘‘Big Bird Meets Cash Cows: Foundations, Corporations Respond to Fear

Tactics,’’ Foundation Watch, Volume IV, Number 4, April 1999, Capital Research Center. 13 CPB 1998 Annual Report, http://www.cpb.org/atwork/annualreports/1998/fin—rep.html. 14 ibid. 15The 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.

curred while funding for the CPB went from $312 million in FY 1996 to $250 million in FY 1999.11 Federal funding went down and operating revenues went up.

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).’’ 12

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.’’ 13 These television and

radio ‘‘future funds’’ totaled $10,728,408 in 1998.14 Only two years before, the total

amount spent on future funds, including system support, was just over a half a million dollars.15

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

121

16 Henderson, David, R. ed. ‘‘The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics,’’ Warner Books, New

York, 1993, page 399. 17 Riley, Bryan, ‘‘Time for Big Bird To Leave the Nest: Privatizing Public Television,’’ Budget

Impact Statement No. 14, CSE Foundation, March 6, 1995. 18World Almanac, p. 188. 19 ‘‘The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1999’’, World Almanac Books, p. 189. 20The 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table No. 916. 21Found at www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/1998/sld029.htm.

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.’’ 16 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.

Consider the following chart.17 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.

Washington, D.C. Viewing Choices: March 5-11

Broadcast Time PBS Programming Cable Alternative

2 PM Sunday .......... ‘‘The Lawrence Welk Show: Then and Now’’ (WMPT) .. ‘‘Brideshead Revisited’’ (Bravo)

10 PM Monday ........ ‘‘A Hard Day’s Night’’ (WETA) ...................................... ‘‘Great Battles of the Civil War’’ (TLC)

10 PM Tuesday ....... ‘‘Nightly Business Report’’ (WETA) .............................. ‘‘Business Tonight’’ (CNBC)

10 PM Wednesday .. ‘‘John Tesh Live at Red Rocks’’ (WMPT) ...................... The U.S. Navy’s First Jet Fighter (Discovery)

2:30 PM Thursday .. ‘‘Look & Cook’’ (WMPT) ................................................ ‘‘Yan Can Cook’’ (TLC)

10 AM Friday .......... ‘‘Homestretch ’’ (WHMM) .............................................. ‘‘Fitness Pros’’ (ESPN)

6:30 PM Saturday ... ‘‘This is Garth Brooks’’ followed by the Eagles in

concert (WMPT).

The Metropolitan Opera Performs ‘‘Tosca’’

(Bravo)

Consumers have a wide range of choices for educational material. Consider just

a few numbers.

• 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.18

• 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.19

• 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.20

• Video. In 1998, nearly 50 million videocassettes were rented, up from 32.3 million

in 1990.21

• 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:

• Pitara.com, a site for kids with an Indian perspective that includes poetry, stories

and special features on history and culture;

• Exploratorium.edu, a self-identified museum of science, art and human perception; and,

• Funbrain.com, where more than 30 educational games in eight categories are free

for kids in four different age groups.

122

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

123

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

124

1 29.4 percent of preschoolers; 46 percent of elementary school age children and 60.2 percent

of adolescents have TVs in their bedrooms. 2Stanford child expert William Damon, for example, says one and a half hours per day should

be the upper limit (Damon, 1997).

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).1

Many child development experts say the average child spends too much time with

television,2 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. NevVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
125

3Parents 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.

ertheless, 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.’’ 3

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

126

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.

lot’’ of violence 4; and an increase in the number of shows that contain some enriching content. 5 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).

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).

127

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.

128

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 SuVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
129

preme 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 limVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
130

itless, 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

131

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, taxfunded 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

132

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, ‘‘MacNeilLehrer 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 muchneeded 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 corVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
133

rect 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.

134

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, eduVerDate 27-JAN-2000 14:32 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\58506 txed02 PsN: txed02
135

cational 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 hardpressed 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

136

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 hardcore 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.

137

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

138

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.

139

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 fundraiser.

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

140

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,

141

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

142

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.

143

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

144

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 highrated 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

145

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.

146

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

147

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:]

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204