|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| REP. MICHAEL G. OXLEY (R-OH) | |
 July 20, 1999 
|
||
 |
|
Statement of Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio) before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Production.
|
|
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was in his first term in the White House and I was in my second term in the House, my first on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I offered floor 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. My 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. 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 the Oxley 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 Theatre" really be subsidized by those who prefer the World Wrestling Federation? In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the importance of reauthorizing the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, 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 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 a reform effort 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, increased royalties from the marketing of licensed merchandise, the 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. But here we are in 1999, with business as usual and no reforms in place. The only real change is that the CPB's budget requests have gotten a lot richer. 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're learning, drip by drip, that it's a widespread practice going back years and years. Worse, it makes WGBH's initial public statements look like a failed attempt at a coverup. Even as a long-time public broadcasting watchdog, I never would have guessed that a public broadcasting station would engage in anything so stupid and 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 the public broadcasters. This is not the place you want to uncover proof of partisan bias. So Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling today's hearing. I look forward to getting some answers out of the first panel, and I look forward to moving a reform reauthorization bill in the very near future. I yield back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
