Pressler’s bill: outcome of ‘a very worthwhile debate’

Remarks by Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, on introducing his bill for future funding of public broadcasting, May 9, 1996.

Mr. President, I also am pleased to release today draft legislation to reauthorize the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. The draft would provide a simple reauthorization of $250 million each year for the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. It is my hope that by then, public broadcasting would no longer need a reauthorization, but would have the resources to thrive on its own.

Last year we began a very worthwhile debate about the future direction of public broadcasting. Survival was never a real issue. I believe public broadcasting will do more than just survive--it will thrive. Public broadcasting is a success story still being written. I am confident of this. Public broadcasting offers a quality product supported by quality individuals who care about what people, especially young people, see or hear on television and radio.

It was in part due to my confidence in public broadcasting that I proposed last year to put public broadcasting on a glide path to independence from Washington--independent from Congress and independent from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I support public broadcasting. Yet, I've never quite understood the logic of the funding process. There has to be a better way to fund public broadcasting than through CPB, which soaks up a large share of funding before it ever gets to the 350 public television stations and 629 public radio stations. A large chunk comes right back here to D.C. to buy programming disproportionately produced in the largest media markets. There just has to be a better way--especially for small city broadcasters.

Last year's debate produced some much-needed innovations. Public broadcasting has improved as a result. I called on public broadcasting to take advantage of the popularity and value of its wonderful programming. They're doing so now. Last year, new ancillary agreements were reached that will see a larger portion of merchandise revenue from public broadcasting products go right back to public broadcasting. Media alliances have been formed with MCI and Turner to distribute public broadcasting programs on video and CD-ROM's. Even PBS has discovered that its logo generates revenue. Foreign markets are an untapped source for programming and products. Even the Internet offers enormous potential for public broadcasting, both as a conduit for classroom-based, interactive educational programming and as a base to market its products. In short, we really haven't begun to tap the enormous funding potential of public broadcasting in the worldwide marketplace.

I also believe we must continue to push for greater efficiencies within CPB--reforms that also can free up revenues. Will all these potential funding sources and markets allow public broadcasting to achieve financial independence? It's a question that we should explore.

So today I am circulating a discussion draft that would not only reauthorize public broadcasting, but also explore and chart a path toward independence. The first way is to give public broadcasting tools to generate more revenue. My draft legislation would give public broadcasting enhanced underwriting authority--enough to draw in new corporate sponsors but not too far to undermine the noncommercial integrity of public broadcasting. The draft also would allow public broadcasting stations to use overlapping station capacity to generate revenue.

These proposals would allow some stations to benefit. However, if all of public broadcasting is to thrive, especially smaller stations such as in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana, we need to bring the best people in finance, government and broadcasting together to chart a course for independence. To do this, the draft proposes creation of a Commission on Public Broadcasting Empowerment. This commission would have 2 years to submit recommendations to Congress that would: foster long-term funding for public broadcasting that would not compromise its essential noncommercial nature; improve economic efficiencies within public broadcasting; guarantee universal access to public broadcasting, particularly in rural, under served areas; and stimulate the development of regional programming centers in order to increase geographic diversity in the origination of programming.

Finally, the draft would authorize the creation of a trust fund to be used to generate sufficient capital for public broadcasting to achieve financial independence. This trust fund approach was first proposed by the public broadcasters late last year. The public broadcasters proposed a more far-reaching approach that would enable a private trust to generate funds through the management of advanced spectrum and the leasing of unused spectrum for commercial purposes. This thoughtful proposal has merit. I support the creation of a trust fund. I believe that the draft spectrum legislation I have proposed today would provide public broadcasters with the resources needed to capitalize a trust fund in a way that would benefit the entire public broadcasting community--radio and television, in markets large and small.

Because this proposal would bring major change to public broadcasting, it deserves careful review. I'm already beginning that review.

Clearly, financial independence will be a key issue. However, other reforms are needed, particularly in the distribution of funds for broadcasting and programming. I am particularly interested in reforms that will enhance the capabilities and creativity of small city and rural broadcasters. In small cities and towns, public broadcasting is vital. South Dakota Public Radio [SDPR], for example, provides pool coverage to commercial stations around the State for legislative reporting, because it has the only radio news reporter on duty during the legislative session. In some markets, SDPR is the sole radio provider of local news, and the exclusive source of Emergency Broadcast System announcements.

For SDPR and similar radio and television stations, continued oversight by Congress is important to ensure they receive their fair share of the public broadcasting dollar. I would like to see public broadcasting be a self-sustaining operation, but I will not forego congressional oversight responsibilities, nor support a disbursement of funds from any trust fund until I am satisfied that there are legal and contractual safeguards in place that will protect the financial and programming interests of small city and rural broadcasters.

What kind of safeguards? First and foremost, there should be service requirements that public broadcasting should follow. As you know, telephone companies are required to provide universal service to its customers, regardless of their location. Public broadcasting should be required to fulfill a similar standard--universal access for all Americans.

Second, any future trust fund should have a formula that recognizes the unique roles of small city broadcasters and the need to achieve universal access goals.

Third, I support giving small broadcasters a share of any revenue generated through enhanced underwriting. A similar arrangement exists with major networks and their affiliates--large and small. It makes sense. It's simple fairness. Large and small stations that broadcast underwritten programming contribute to the exposure of the corporate sponsor to the viewing public. They should benefit.

Fourth, we should be encouraging the development of regional programming outlets. At present, there is a disproportionate concentration of program development in the large cities. Regional programming will not only further the diversity of public broadcasting, but improve viewership in these areas.

So, in conclusion, there are a number of issues worth discussing. Funding sources and funding distribution are the two key issues. I am hopeful that the proposed Commission on Public Broadcasting Empowerment will help lay the groundwork for both financial independence and distribution fairness. The funding sources may change, new technologies may emerge, but the central mission of public broadcasting--to be a dependable source of educational, community-based programming--is strong and growing stronger. That's a credit to the people in the communities that make it all happen.

This draft is a starting point. I look forward to working with the public broadcasting community and my colleagues on both sides of aisle to improve this draft and pass a bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this draft be printed in the Record.