Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
July 12, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING
LENGTH: 11300 words
HEADLINE:
HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: CONFIRMATION HEARING
CHAIRED
BY: SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)
NOMINATION OF FRANCISCO J. SANCHEZ
TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS;
FRANK HENRY CRUZ TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING;
ERNEST J. WILSON
III, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CORPORATION OF PUBLIC
BROADCASTING;
KATHERINE M. ANDERSON TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING;
KENNETH
TOMLINSON TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CORPORATION OF PUBLIC
BROADCASTING;
LOCATION: 253 RUSSELL SENATE
OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME: 9:30 AM. EDT DATE:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000
BODY:
SEN. JOHN
MCCAIN (R-AZ): Good morning. The first nomination before us today is that of
Francisco Sanchez to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and
International Affairs. I want to thank Mr. Sanchez for coming before the
committee.
I'd like to recognize Mr. Sanchez's parents, Delea (sp) and
Francisco (sp), who are with him today. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. I know this
is a proud day for you for your son. He wouldn't be here without you, in a
number of ways.
In addition to his family, Mr. Sanchez is accompanied by
his current boss, Buddy MacKay (sp), who is the Special Envoy to the Americas
for the White House, and an old friend and colleague of mine. I welcome all of
you here today. Among other things, the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs is responsible for such important matters as negotiating
international air services agreements, ensuring the benefits of a deregulated,
competitive domestic airline industry, and expanding transportation and trade
opportunities for U.S. companies around the globe.
I'll take just a
moment to touch on key aviation policy areas that will face Mr. Sanchez if he is
confirmed. On the domestic front, we still need to reduce barriers to
competition in the airline industry; DOT must show more initiative in using its
existing powers to open up constrained airports.
With respect to
international aviation policy, I continue to support fully DOT's effort to
pursue open skies agreements which promote free trade between countries in
aviation services, and produce significant consumer benefits. All of us continue
to be frustrated that the United States and the United Kingdom cannot come to
terms on open skies.
I welcome for the committee, Mr. Sanchez.
Senator Burns.
SEN. CONRAD BURNS (R-MT): Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today; and thank you, Mr.
Sanchez, for your public service, we appreciate that very much.
I want
to make a couple of points this morning. Last week they just made the
assignments outside the perimeter rule out of national airport. And I feel that
it was a very bad decision that they made down there.
I wish we would
look, just for a second, and talk about fair. I've got a little thing here I
want to show you.
This is where the slots went: Las Vegas, Denver,
Phoenix, and Los Angeles. A good argument could be made for Phoenix, no problem.
How am I doing, boss?
This is the worst of them all: None in
Salt Lake, where it's a hub, there are some 60-odd markets of which the
Northwest gets nothing, nothing. Now there's no television here and it's a
simple thing. But I want to alert you in what we have to look at with that group
that you're going to work with down there.
Even the Las Vegas, I don't
have a problem with; I don't even have much of a problem with Denver and
Frontier. Because I'll have to change airlines, but I can do that. But it offers
no competition from a hub that offers more cities in one-stop service to
Washington National than any hub in the West. Do you know how much they serve
there? Six cities. Six out of Los Angeles and sixty up here.
Now
somebody down there did not either read the guidelines of which those slots were
to be awarded. And I am more than unhappy about it because we are -- yes, we are
sparsely populated, but we don't have competition, and the competition that we
don't have, we pay through the nose in air fares.
So I just want to
bring that up and make a point at this hearing this morning. I will be
supporting you, by the way; but nonetheless, I think the Los Angeles part is
just egregious, Mr. Chairman. Whenever you turn down a hub that serves sixty
some odd cities in the Northwest, the Northwest got nothing out of that. Not one
darn thing.
Had I known that, Air 21 would still be on the floor of the
U.S. Senate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you,
Senator Burns, and I think your point is well made. And I'd like to make a
couple of additional comments about that.
Thanks to the really
extraordinary efforts on the part of those who support the maintenance of the
perimeter rule, including United Air Lines, including several other airlines,
including the parochialism that exists here in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area, we were unable to do what we really need to do, and that is do away with
the perimeter rule and let people fly wherever the markets are.
So what
we did, and I'm not taking the side of the Department of Transportation, but we
really, as I said on the floor, we won a pyrrhic victory: Just 24 flights, 12 of
them within and 12 of them without, outside of the perimeter rule. Then it lent
itself, very frankly, to a huge amount of politicization and political pressure
on the Department of Transportation.
Everybody wrote letters -- I did
not, but everybody, understand we wrote letters, "give us flights to our
particular city," putting absolutely to rest for all times that there is a need
for flights beyond the perimeter rule in the United States of America from
Reagan National Airport, which incidentally as we all know, has the highest air
fares in the country.
But it is also a telling commentary, the power,
particularly of United Air Lines and other airlines who wanted the status quo so
that they can have the high air fares out of Reagan National and maintain what
they have out at BWI as well as Dulles.
I would just remind you, the
reason why we put in the perimeter rule was so that Dulles Airport, which was
then a white elephant back in the Fifties, would then have a chance to grow and
prosper. I landed at Dulles Airport on Sunday afternoon. It's congested, it's
full, it's packed.
And by the way, I have to give credit to the Virginia
delegation as well, and the Washington Post, which editorialized at least once a
week about how we were interfering with the operation of Reagan National Airport
by trying to change a federal law. Curious logic.
SEN. BURNS: Mr.
Chairman, if you would yield just for a second.
SEN. MCCAIN: I would be
glad to.
SEN. BURNS: If they just looked at the guidelines of Air 21
that was written into that, it says to provide domestic network benefit in areas
beyond the perimeter, to benefit those areas. And to increase competition by new
entrants carriers or in multiple markets.
We might as well have made a
doorstop out of those two statements, because they weren't even looked at. So I
guess that's my I have no problem with going to Phoenix for the simple reason
that I think those slots will be very well served. But the Los Angeles market,
to a carrier -- now I know TWA, you know, 30 wobbly airplanes, and only serve
six cities out of that hub is not, that doesn't fulfill the guidelines in the
language of Air 21.
SEN. MCCAIN: Let me just assure you that I will
continue the struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other restrictions
against competition, which then causes lower air fares, which then allows for
more markets to be served. And when we get into our questioning Mr. Sanchez, I
am deeply concerned about the consolidations within the industry, the
United-U.S. Air merger; we read in The Washington Post and the New York Times
this morning, American is now talking to Delta -- Northwest. If there is then a
spin-off of Continental, you will end up with three major airlines in America. I
am not sure that's good for America; in fact, I'm pretty sure that it is not.
Senator Lott, did you want to engage in this discussion before we allow
Mr. Sanchez to talk?
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS): It has been very
interesting to observe it.
Mr. Sanchez, welcome, and good luck in your
new position.
Mr. Chairman, I share the feelings that you and Senator
Burns have both expressed, including the ridiculousness of the perimeter rule,
but I think perhaps enough has been said this morning. I just want to emphasize,
as you've already heard from Senator Burns, and from others as you have been
making a courtesy calls.
Please keep in mind in your new position the
small and underserved markets, which we have found when they get service,
flourish and do quite well. Jackson, Mississippi was one of the five most
underserved areas in the country. When we had another airline come in, the one
that was there complained that they would probably have to reduce their service
or stop serving that area. As a matter of fact, the boardings went up 106
percent of something of that magnitude; not only did the existing airline
increase in ridership, the new airline was full almost immediately. So it has
worked very well where they do get reasonable service in these underserved and
smaller markets.
So good luck, and I look forward to working with you.
SEN. MCCAIN: Senator Rockefeller.
SEN. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, IV,
(D-WV): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My priorities in aviation tend to be to
try to make the system work, and that's for big markets as well as small
markets; because it isn't working and for the most part we have kind of stood by
here in Congress and watched the system deteriorate, and not really done very
much about it until we passed the last FAA bill, which will take a while to kick
in, and it won't be nearly enough.
You have an enormously important
position; people underestimate it. But the power that you have, the influence
that you have, the types of decisions that you have, are not only domestic but
they're international and they're very far-flung on all sides.
There may
be some who try to say that "Well, you haven't had a lot of aviation
experience." Well, none of us had much experience when we came up here as being
senators. But people said that about Jane Garvey, too, and she's the best FAA
administrator I've ever seen.
So you have my full confidence. You should
know that along with the national system of making air traffic safety smoother
and safer and all the rest of it which we're not yet up to, obviously I have a
very strong interest in small markets. You do essential air service, you
administer this grant program which is new and would be very, very interesting,
but I have a lot of confidence in your ability and I look forward to voting for
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. MCCAIN: Senator Graham.
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D-FL): Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank
you very much for this opportunity to introduce to the committee a good friend,
a long friend of mine, Francisco Sanchez, who has been nominated to be the
Deputy Secretary of Transportation for Aviation.
I have known Mr.
Sanchez for most of his adult life. He comes from Tampa, Florida where his
family is a very important part of the fabric of that community. While I was
governor, Mr. Sanchez served with distinction in our administration, working
particularly closely with our lieutenant governor, Wayne Nixon, primarily in
economic development issues.
I can attest that Mr. Sanchez is a man of
dedication, honor, integrity and very keen intelligence. One of his particular
skills is as a gifted problem-solver, which from the opening comments, sounds as
if it would be a characteristic extremely valuable in this position.
Mr.
Sanchez, although a relatively young man, brings a rich blend of public and
private sector experience, including employment with one of Florida's leading
law firms and later the Dispute Resolution Center at Harvard.
Mr.
Sanchez has a special appreciation of the aviation needs of rural communities,
small towns and underserved areas; experience and expertise that he will be able
to use at the Department of Transportation. In part, this experience was gained
through his work in state government where part of his portfolio was to bring
aviation service to underserved communities in Florida.
He also served
as the first director of Florida's Caribbean Basin initiative program. He has
used his expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean in many other positions.
One of Frank's particular skills is in negotiation. He was part of the
Harvard negotiation group which has been very instrumental in not only educating
individuals and groups about negotiating skills, but also actually applying
those skills. As the managing director of CMI International Group, Frank
designed and facilitated the negotiations for complex international transactions
in labor- management.
He has worked in such diverse areas as Medellin,
Columbia as part of a teaching tolerance program, an initiative to end violence
in that province. He played an advisory role in ending the Peru-Ecuador dispute
which contributed to a peace treaty signed in October of 1998, and I can say I
know his firsthand abilities in the area of negotiation because he taught to our
Washington staff and myself, through an intensive, multi-day seminar, techniques
in negotiating skill which all of you have had an opportunity to be exposed to,
and thus you can now understand why I have been so persuasive in asking your
support for common causes.
Currently, Mr. Sanchez serves as Special
Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to a Special Envoy for the
Americas, Ambassador Buddy MacKay. There his focus includes economic issues,
democracy, judicial reform, human rights, health and education systems,
environmental policy and sustainable development.
Mr. Sanchez has a
bachelor's and law degree from Florida State University, and a Master's degree
in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government.
Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the chance to be here today. I
am certain that you will find the same qualities in Mr. Sanchez that I have
known for many years.
My colleague, Senator Mack, has asked me to join
in support of Mr. Sanchez, and I would like to submit his statement for the
record.
SEN. MCCAIN: Without objection.
SEN. GRAHAM: Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you very much, Senator
Graham. I know you have a very busy schedule this morning, and we appreciate the
fact that you would take the time out on behalf of your friend and fellow
Floridian.
Thank you very much, Senator Graham.
Senator Dorgan,
did you have anything to say before we allow Mr. Sanchez to say a word?
SEN. BYRON L. DORGAN, (D-ND): Mr. Chairman, I will wait and, if it's
permissible, I want to ask Mr. Sanchez a few questions. But let me just say that
I am delighted that he is here. I think he has wonderful credentials, and I am
supportive of his nomination.
I thank Senator Graham for his wonderful
introduction. I would like to ask him a couple of questions following his
testimony.
SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Sanchez, welcome to the Committee.
FRANCISCO J. SANCHEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee.
I am honored to come before you today as you consider my nomination to
be Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs.
I especially appreciate the Committee's efforts to expedite my nomination during
this busy legislative period.
And I want to thank Senator Graham for his
kind words. My introduction to public service began 20 years ago when I first
went to work for Senator Graham in the Florida governor's office. I thank him
for that opportunity and I thank him for his continued support today.
I
also want to thank Senator Mack for his written testimony in support of my
nomination.
I am also pleased to be joined today by Special Envoy for
the Americas Buddy MacKay, himself a former Member of Congress.
Serving
as chief of staff to Special Envoy MacKay has allowed me to advance America's
strategic and economic interests throughout the Western Hemisphere. I want to
thank Mr. MacKay, and I also would like to thank the special envoy staff for
their friendship and tremendous support.
Finally and most importantly,
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for acknowledging my mother and father. I am
grateful for their consistent support and encouragement over the years, as well
as that of my friends who have joined me here this morning.
Mr.
Chairman, I am deeply honored by the confidence that the President and Secretary
Slater have placed in me. The President and Secretary Slater recognize the
critical importance of the international transportation system to our nation's
economy, security, and quality of life.
The Office of Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs will tackle numerous complex
issues. I know that my time is limited, but I believe that my background and my
energy can be valuable assets as we work to increase competition and access at
home and open up new markets abroad.
I know this committee has worked
hard to enhance air service and airline competition in domestic communities both
large and small. I will work to ensure that the Essential Air Service program is
responsive to airline customers throughout the United States. The Department of
Transportation will also monitor the impacts of airline consolidation, providing
input on major changes like the merger of United and U.S. Airways.
As
chief of staff in the Special Envoy for the Americas office in the White House,
I became intensely aware of the need to promote free and open markets. I am
ready to draw on my background in negotiation to help the Department complete
open sky agreements with foreign governments in all corners of the world.
Before joining the Special Envoy staff, I was managing director of an
international consulting firm specializing in negotiation strategies for
business and government. This experience can be an asset as we move forward with
negotiations with the United Kingdom, and expand multilateral aviation
agreements with APEC, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation organization.
I look forward to working with this committee, the industry, labor and
other interested groups to help the United States achieve transportation
excellence in the 21st Century.
Thank you for your consideration. I
would be happy to address any questions that you may have.
SEN. MCCAIN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Sanchez.
My first question to you is, did you
see this morning's paper about a possible merger between Northwest and American?
MR. SANCHEZ: To be honest, I was preparing for possible questions and
reading my statement over, so I didn't read the paper this morning.
SEN.
MCCAIN: Well, the rumors of it, I am sure you had heard even before.
MR.
SANCHEZ: Yes, sir, I have.
SEN. MCCAIN: Do you share the concern of
many, including me, that we could end up with three mega-airlines in America?
MR. SANCHEZ: I share the concern that we need to be ever- vigilant, that
we maintain a competitive airline industry. I think that much has been
accomplished.
SEN. MCCAIN: Do you believe that three airlines is good
for America?
MR. SANCHEZ: I am not sure what number is appropriate or
inappropriate. I know that it will be a priority of this office and my tenure to
contribute as much as I can to analyze and --
SEN. MCCAIN: I'd like some
straight answers, Mr. Sanchez. Do you believe that it is good for airline
competition for us to go from six major airlines to three major airlines?
MR. SANCHEZ: I don't feel I have enough information to respond to
whether three or six or four are correct. I know that I need to be very
concerned about the impact of a reduction in the number of airlines, and I will
work as hard as possible with you and members of this committee as we analyze
that.
SEN. MCCAIN: Could I just pause for a minute? The Majority Leader
obviously has to try to make the train run on the floor of the Senate, and I'd
like to pause so that he could make a very brief statement. And we'd be pleased
to have him leave, anyway.
SEN. LOTT: Well, I appreciate your courtesy,
Mr. Chairman, and the indulgence of my colleagues. And again, I've already
wished the best to Mr. Sanchez.
I think he's an excellent choice and I
look forward to working with him.
I had hoped to be here for the next
panel, but we do have a matter on the floor of the Senate I need to go work on.
I just want to extend my congratulations and offer my support to the four
nominees that will be on the next panel for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. The Chairman, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Wilson and the
renomination of Katherine Anderson, who has been on the Board for three years.
I think this is a good group of nominees for this Board, of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They have an important role to fulfill,
educational TV can be very positive. I have felt in the past that it has not
done some of the things it should have done. Mistakes obviously were made with
the way the lists were handled; and I do think that sometime a biased point of
view was reflected. But I think that progress has been made in trying to
straighten that out and have a fairer presentation; and I certainly hope that
you are successful and I offer my support to this Board, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for allowing me to make this brief statement.
SEN. MCCAIN: I
thank the Majority Leader, and I appreciate his continued involvement in the
committee work, given his other responsibilities. I believe I'm correct in
saying we'd like to move these quickly to the floor for full Senate
confirmations.
SEN. LOTT: Yes. Thank you.
SEN. MCCAIN: I thank
the Majority Leader.
Mr. Sanchez, do you support eliminating the
perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport?
MR. SANCHEZ: I'm not prepared
to make a statement on that. As you know, I haven't gone to the Department of
Transportation yet. I know that my mandate as, the Department's mandate is to do
everything it can to increase competition. So I think we need to look at all
options as we try to do that, working with the committee.
SEN. MCCAIN:
Well, I regret that you can't give me answers to two very important questions.
Senator Burns?
SEN. BURNS: I think I have already made my
statement. I don't think he wants to sit through that again. I am disappointed
that -- those are two questions I would imagine that are probably the most
important questions that will be asked of this committee, of this office.
Especially air service, those kinds of things, are very, very important to our
part of the country.
So I have no questions.
SEN. MCCAIN:
Senator Rockefeller?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I think you answered those
questions precisely as you should have. And that is that you haven't taken
office yet, they would try to put you on record on two issues which are
extremely important to a lot of people; one much less so to me than to the
Chairman. But I think you did the right thing in answering that way.
I
would hope that, you have had a lot of international experience, you have very
good relations with the White House, and I say that in the best sense of the
word; that's something that DOT has needed, and I think that you can be very
effective in helping formulate policy.
I don't really have any questions
beyond that, except for an observation. And that is that Senator Dorgan and I,
and Senator Burns come from very rural states. There's an interesting kind of a
conflict between that, because we understood -- or at least we should understand
that when their problems in Cleveland or Chicago or LaGuardia, the bigger
airports, that we're the first ones to get hurt. In other words, if the thunder
storms are a mix-up or delay or whatever, we're the first ones to get hurt
because we're the first ones they start canceling flights out; that is the small
airports.
So it's a tricky business when one, you're looking on
essential air service, you're trying to increase competition into small areas.
And yet those small areas are also affected primarily by what happens in the
large ones.
So you've got a hard job, and we in Congress -- I think a
lot of the fault of all of this is our lack of leadership in Congress. I mean, I
think that the airlines are blamed and can be, and people's expectations are too
high, and that's understood. But we also understand it's going to be twice as
bad before the FAA authorization bill, which we thankfully passed, has really a
chance to kick in.
So we're going to get a much, much worse situation of
delays and cancellations and passenger frustration; much less -- you know, the
next airline into China, and when are you going to announce what that might be
and what's the delay, and you're not in office yet, and you're not confirmed so
you can't do that.
But it's a very, very tricky business. I am one who
feels that with the airlines, that aviation has sort of overtaken our highway
system, as important to the development of America, and particularly the rural
America. The highway system is everywhere now, and the relative strength of the
economies of the states hasn't changed all that much. I think the aviation
system, if properly apportioned, and fairly apportioned throughout the States,
can make that kind of difference. And in a so-called new economy world, will
make that kind of difference.
So I really wish you well, and I have an
enormous amount of respect for what you bring. Thank you.
SEN. MCCAIN:
Senator Dorgan?
SEN. DORGAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr.
Sanchez, as I indicated, I am going to support your nomination; I think you have
very impressive credentials. You have not, it appears to me, worked extensively
in aviation issues or areas.
MR. SANCHEZ: That's correct.
SEN.
DORGAN: And while I don't have heartburn about your reply to the Chairman, I
think the Chairman's questions are important questions, and I want to probe a
bit on those issues.
I think it's very important that we understand how
you feel about where all of this is heading. How has deregulation of the
airlines affected our country? How has it affected rural areas versus urban
areas? What has it meant in terms of increased or decreased competition? What
has it meant in terms of fares and so on.
The Chairman mentioned that
this morning in the newspaper there was a rather large article about the
prospect about a merger between American Airlines and Northwest Airlines. I have
no specific knowledge of that issue, I should say, but I am very concerned about
it; I am concerned about the proposed United-U.S. Air merger; I am concerned
about what I am sure inevitably would be major talks between Delta and
Continental.
I am concerned about ending up with three major airline
carriers in this country, and I am concerned about the merger-stopping
justification at least, justification for mergers, talking about creating
seamless transportation systems. I suppose the ultimate seamless transportation
system is to have one company left, and they'll decide who they serve, when they
fly, how they fly, what kind of equipment they fly and what fares they charge,
and if you don't like it, tough luck. That's the ultimate seamlessness. And of
course it is antithetical to everything we understand about the free market
system and how it ought to work to serve the American people.
So the
question is this: We're kind of, I think, at the famous fork-in-the-road here.
And one road, with respect to the domestic airline industry, leads to more
mergers, it leads to fewer and bigger airlines, it leads to less choice and it
leads to higher fares. The other road, of course, has a better destination and
better outcome.
I would like to understand, as you come to this job with
the objective of ensuring the benefits of a deregulated competitive domestic
airline industry, give me your sense of these issues.
I mean, the
Chairman has asked about them. I wasn't here, but I understand Senator Burns
referred to it. I asked about it.
Give me your sense of this. I have a
real foreboding about these merger discussions. I think this is serious, serious
stuff. What's your impression?
MR. SANCHEZ: Well, let me begin with your
first question of what I think deregulation has meant for the airline industry
and for our country. I think it's been very good. I think it's helped bring down
prices, I think that it has stimulated competition. I have been involved, in one
form or another, of economic development sometimes for my own company, other
times on behalf of the State of Florida, and most recently promoting open
markets within our own hemisphere.
So just as a basic premise, I believe
that more competition, deregulation has been a good thing. On the negative side,
as Senator Rockefeller can attest, small communities have experienced
challenges. And as Senator Graham mentioned, I served in his administration in
several capacities, one of which was at the Florida Department of Commerce,
where part of my portfolio was helping smaller communities develop economically.
And without a strong transportation system, particularly air service, those
communities could not thrive.
So on balance, I think it's been very good
and I think there are areas where we need to pay particular attention and be as
helpful as we can.
I guess another premise that I come in with is that
competition works strongest where we have a lot of competitors. Having said
that, I don't feel comfortable shooting from the hip and offering -- with all
due respect, I don't mean to not answer straight, but I do want to have the
benefit of analysis, I want to have the benefit of reflection that we will get
through this process before I offer very concrete responses to whether there
should be a certain number and what that impact is. But I can say in general,
those are my feelings about open markets, about deregulation, and about
competition.
SEN. DORGAN: But would you concede that a domestic airline
industry with six or eight or ten healthy domestic airline companies is better
than an aviation airline industry with three companies? I mean, that's the
question that was asked earlier. Right off the top, I'd say "absolutely."
Generally speaking, in a competitive environment, in a market system in
which user's prices are regulated by competition, and you have got entrants and
contestants that are aggressively competing for the consumer's dollars, more is
better.
I used to teach economics and overcame that, ultimately -- but
it's just fundamental that more is better in this circumstance. Do you agree
with that?
MR. SANCHEZ: As a general premise I agree, Senator, that more
competitors tends to lead to more competition. I think that's an accurate
statement.
SEN. DORGAN: And fewer competitors, as a result of
deregulation, has resulted in less competition in some areas of the country;
would you agree with that?
MR. SANCHEZ: Again, without knowing which
areas of the country to which you're referring, but I know that some areas are
underserved and we need to do what we can to help bring service to those areas.
SEN. DORGAN: You know something, I can show you how you can fly twice as
far for half as much. If you want to leave this table and fly to Los Angeles, I
can show you how to fly to Los Angeles, which is twice as far as flying to
Bismarck, and you can fly twice as far and play half the price.
So that
relates to my question of how this system works and who benefits, and whether it
is truly competitive and whether it would be enhanced or injured by more
mergers.
I would not want to send anybody into any agency that becomes
part of the grateful dead that just sits around when merger talks are going on
saying "Well, gosh, that's okay with us." I want real tigers to be in these
agencies saying, "I want to aggressively look at these issues on behalf of the
American consumer, and see whether this enhances the market system in this
country." Because this country is better off with robust, aggressive
competition.
And as I read this morning's paper -- we had a hearing
here, in the chair that you sit now, we had the CEOs of United Air and U.S. Air.
If you just listen to that in isolation, you would just think, "Gosh, that's the
best thing in the world for the country, to have these two big companies merge."
And I'm sure Northwest and American, if they ever get together, they'd come and
say the same thing. Pretty soon it will be down to three companies and then two
companies. Frankly, I don't think that's in the country's interest, and I want
to send somebody to DOT that's going to look at ensuring the benefits of a
deregulated, competitive domestic airline industry who is going to be a real
tiger, who has real passion about these things.
MR. SANCHEZ: Senator, I
can assure you, I've heard you, I've heard your concerns, I've heard the
Chairman's concerns, and I can commit to you and pledge to you that I will work
hard with this committee, with individual members, to make sure that together we
ensure a competitive air service here in this country.
SEN. DORGAN: Mr.
Chairman, I've taken more than my time.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr.
Sanchez. I may give you an opportunity to reflect and analyze before we move
your nomination.
Any further questions?
Thank you very much, Mr.
Sanchez.
MR. SANCHEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. MCCAIN: The
committee will now move to our second item of business, review of the
renominations of Ms. Katherine Anderson and Mr. Frank Cruz as members of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the
nominations to the Board of Mr. Kenneth Tomlinson and Mr. Ernest Wilson.
I welcome the nominees to the committee, and I invite at the beginning
of their statement to introduce any family members that may be present today.
As we consider these nominees to the Board of CPB, we must acknowledge
that the sweeping changes affecting the entire telecommunications industry
impact CPB as well as more commercial interests such as cable, satellite and
commercial broadcast television.
In the past, I've criticized CPB for a
lack of objectivity in public programming, and I've encouraged nominees to work
towards improving programming balance. I believe that CPB has made significant
strides in this area, and I have encouraged nominees to work towards improving
programming balance.
I believe that CPB has made significant strides in
this area, and I hope the Board will be vigilant in ensuring that future
programming is balanced and objective. I look forward to hearing how these
nominees perceive the changes and new challenges they face, and hearing how they
intend to deal with them.
We will begin with Ms. Anderson. Welcome back
before the committee, Ms. Anderson.
KATHERINE ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I do have my husband with me today, he is Tom H.
Anderson, sitting right here.
SEN. MCCAIN: Welcome, Mr. Anderson.
MS. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss my renomination to the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
I would
first like to express my appreciation to the President for nominating me, and to
the Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, for recommending me. I'm very grateful
for their support.
I first appeared before this committee as a nominee
to the CPB Board nearly three years ago, and today I appear as a nominee for a
second term. I bring to public broadcasting an entrepreneurial spirit and a
background of service in both the public arena and the private sector. I am
drawn to public broadcasting because of its reputation for providing excellent
educational programming.
Education is the cornerstone of public
broadcasting and its commitment to children is as old as public broadcasting
itself but more vibrant than ever before. The celebrated and award-winning
children's programs that appear on public television are testament to its
devotion to preparing America's youngest citizens for the classroom and teaching
them more about the world around them.
From Sesame Street to Zoom to
Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, public television has a reputation of providing
excellent children's programming. This tradition continues with new children's
programs, such as Dragon Tales and Between the Lions, a series focused on
teaching kids to read. These programs make learning fun for children. I believe
that CPB can build on this legacy creatively, looking for better ways to stretch
federal dollars through innovation, partnerships, and new technology.
Digital technology gives public broadcasters educational tools we have
never had before. It promises to revolutionize the educational and cultural
impact of public broadcasting for both children and adults. When we convert to
digital technology, viewers will be able to interact with television rather than
just passively view it.
For example, an enhanced viewing of Great
Performances would allow a viewer to watch the performance, follow the written
music score, and perhaps even mute a particular instrument and play along with
the orchestra. The viewer would even be able to receive a violin lesson taught
by musician great Itzhak Perlman by simply clicking on the "Troubleshooting
Guide for the Violinist."
More channel space will also be available
through digital technology, at least four channels per station, allowing public
broadcasters to simultaneously broadcast programs that appeal to different
audiences and age groups.
This means that on a single digital channel, a
station might offer, in addition to the main programming feed, a dedicated
children's channel, an adult lifelong learning channel, and a local programming
channel emphasizing a special interest in the viewer's local community.
While CPB works to take advantage of digital technology and the promises
that it holds, public radio and television will continue to improve and innovate
in other aspects, including operations and services.
Public broadcasting
has made significant progress in these areas. CPB has phased in policy changes
to distribute federal funds more efficiently, and to better ensure that public
broadcasting stations are focused on serving their communities. The result is
that more funds are available for incentive-based matching grants, and more
stations sharing a market are cutting overhead by working with their neighbors
through cooperative arrangements.
To further assist all stations in
improving their service to the community, CPB created television and radio
Future Funds. The Future Funds are used to invest in critical new initiatives
that help stations improve and increase their services, and share best practices
for better operations in the future.
In addition, both the Television
Community Service Grant and the Radio Community Service Grant have recently been
rewritten to direct a higher percentage of resources to rural and minority
stations.
I believe that these initiatives exhibit a responsible use of
government money, and I support such policies. This is a very unique time to be
involved in the broadcasting industry. If confirmed to this position, I will
work to ensure that CPB continues to be a leader in putting technology to work
for the benefit of all Americas, and that as today's technologies change, public
broadcasting remains committed to offering a standard of excellence and a
commitment to education for all its citizens.
Thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you. I'm happy to answer any questions.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you very much.
SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Cruz,
welcome.
FRANK CRUZ: Thank you, sir.
My relatives and my family
are in the State of Arizona and California; they are not here with me today, but
they are here in spirit.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss my
renomination to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. I would like to begin by thanking President Clinton for
renominating me again, and I would also like to acknowledge the strong and
thoughtful leadership of Diane Blair who immediately preceded me as CPB Board
Chair, whom I served as Vice Chair for two years. I mention her because she just
recently passed away a couple weeks ago.
This is an exciting and
challenging time to be part of public broadcasting; technology is changing
rapidly, and these changes provide public broadcasting with an opportunity to
reach new people and to empower new voices and to meet the changing educational
needs of adults and children in communities across the country. I have a strong
desire to be part of the CPB Board at this time, and to use my skills and
experience to help build and lead public broadcasting into the 21st Century.
I believe that my past experience on the CPB board and my professional
background in broadcasting, management, business, can add to CPB's mission of
education, diversity and technology.
I grew up in the barrios of Tucson,
Arizona, a little barrio that we affectionately called "Hollywood." We called it
Hollywood because it's the exact opposite of Hollywood. But of such roots and
background I came from. I was raised by a mother who was left a young widow
shortly before I was born. After graduating from high school, I was an enlistee
in the U.S. Air Force. Then I went on to become a high school teacher in the
inner city of Los Angeles.
Almost thirty years ago I began a career in
broadcasting as a reporter and as an anchor for KNBC in Los Angeles, KABC in Los
Angeles; and after KNBC, I went on to create a Spanish language independent
station in Los Angeles, KVEA-TV. Then shortly thereafter, I was the founder and
the chairman of Telemundo, the nation's second Spanish-language network. And
more recently I founded and served as chairman of Gulf Atlantic Life Insurance
Company, the first Latino- owned life insurance company in the United States.
I also have been recently appointed as a member of the University of
Southern California Board of Trustees, after receiving both my bachelor's and
master's degrees from USC, and I am proud of that. My career in education,
broadcasting and business have responded to the needs of our ethnically-diverse
population, and I in all honesty can tell you I'm proud to be the first not only
minority chairman ever of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but obviously
the first Hispanic ever to chair CPB.
Throughout my life, I have always
been very aware of diversity. While a young man in the Air Force, I realized
that America truly embodies a melting pot and a mosaic of cultural beliefs and
customs, and if I am reconfirmed to the CPB board, one of my goals for public
broadcasting will be to continue to promote and encourage diversity programming
for, by, and about diverse audiences.
At a time when the commercial
broadcasters are being criticized for their lack of diversity, public
broadcasting continues its strong commitment to meeting the diverse needs and
interests of every American. I believe that the digital technology offers public
broadcasting even more opportunity to provide programming that reflects the
diversity and the rich culture of America.
Having worked both as a high
school teacher and as a college professor in California, I understand how
important it is to provide educational opportunities to all members of our
community. Education can open doors of opportunity to everyone, as I have
witnessed in my own personal life. I truly believe that public broadcasting can
does play an important role in providing educational opportunities.
From
its new children's series, Between the Lions, aimed at helping young children
learn to read, to PBS's Adult Learning Series, geared to providing lifelong
learning, public broadcasting remains committed to ensuring the growth and
development of instructional, educational and cultural programming.
For
example, the Annenberg/CPB Channel, which is really an excellent combination of
private sector -- due to the generosity of Ambassador Annenberg, and CPB and
federal dollars. That free satellite television and web service funded by The
Annenberg Foundation and CPB provides professional development in all core
subjects to teachers nationwide, free. The service is currently received by more
than 45,000 schools throughout the nation as well as in 22 million homes, and
its audience grows by over 1,000 schools and 500,000 homes per month. I'd like
to add that the video and web-based resources of the Annenberg/CPB channel look
carefully into the real classrooms across the country, feature the finest minds
in education, and they promote discussion, reflection and change throughout the
teacher corps nationwide.
I'd like to add that the Annenberg/CPB channel
will soon be used by thousands of non-credentialed teachers how are in the
process of getting credentialed in the State of California throughout that
system; so your taxpayer dollars through CPB are going well to work in that
direction.
Perhaps the newest challenge, however, that we face is
effectively responding to the emerging technology. Digital broadcasting promises
to greatly improve public television's ability to educate, inform, and serve the
American people. The digital age will allow for enhanced programming where each
individual television program will have the potential to deliver multiple layers
of information simultaneously, as opposed to the only one layer which is offered
now through the analog technology world.
In addition, digital technology
will enable stations to multicast, broadcasting children's programs and adult
education simultaneously. While the digital age poses a great financial
challenge to the public broadcasting community at large, it will also improve
public broadcasting's public service to all Americans.
These are
challenges that I welcome and I will continue to help public broadcasting meet
if I am confirmed to another term on the CPB Board.
Thank you so much
for the opportunity to appear before you, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you may have of me. Thank you.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you,
Mr. Cruz. I thank you and Ms. Anderson for the fine job that you have done in
your previous tenure, and I believe that you are highly qualified to continue in
this very important work.
I thank you both.
SEN. MCCAIN: Mr.
Tomlinson. For the record, Mr. Tomlinson and I have known each other for many,
many years, and I'm very pleased to see an old friend nominated for this very
important position.
Mr. Tomlinson.
KENNETH TOMLINSON: Mr.
Chairman, I am honored to be here. Before, I'd like to introduce my wife,
Rebecca, and my sons, William and Lucas.
SEN. MCCAIN: Welcome. I notice
that one of them is in uniform. I'm pleased to see that, Mr. Tomlinson.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're very proud to see Lucas still in uniform after four
years over there.
Mr. Chairman, I'll offer to forego reading my entire
statement. I would point out that I'm a lifelong journalist; I had the privilege
to study broadcasting, since I served as foreign correspondent in the 1970s, as
Director of Voice of America; and in the eight or so years I served on the U.S.
Board for International Broadcasting, I had a chance to implement a lot of the
ideas I had formed in studying international broadcasting, studying
broadcasting. Especially in studying the model of the BBC World Service.
I will pause to say that whenever we gather in a forum like this, I
think we should reaffirm our commitment to political balance in our
broadcasting, and we certainly want to do so today. I realize that we don't have
to look far for a good model, because within PBS there was the great original
McNeil/Lehrer Report, now the Jim Lehrer News Hour, which has served as a model
for in-depth broadcasting for balance in broadcasting.
I believe
passionately in the mission of public broadcasting. I'm especially committed to
the role many of our local stations play in the preservation of the culture of
music in this country, whether you're talking about Delta Blues or bluegrass or
gospel or jazz, our local stations, especially some of the ones I've been
associated with as a volunteer and supporter of; KCY in New York and WAMU here
in Washington have done a marvelous job at preserving our musical heritage.
Be happy to answer any questions, I would be happy to read further from
the statement. And Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you very
much for considering my nomination.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you. Pleasant to
see you again, Mr. Tomlinson.
SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Wilson, welcome.
ERNEST J. WILSON, III: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would first
like to introduce my wife, who is here with me this morning, Dr. Francia L.
Wilson, who is here in the room.
SEN. MCCAIN: Welcome, Dr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I first want to
express my gratitude to you for holding this hearing, and to the President for
nominating me to serve on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I am deeply
honored to be here today.
This is a very exciting time to be a part of
public broadcasting. Our rapidly changing technology offers new opportunities to
expand public broadcasting's educational mission, and to reach even more diverse
audiences than are already being reached today.
The CPB Board has
identified three major priorities for the coming years: Education, technology,
and diversity. And if confirmed for this Board, I pledge myself to advance each
of those objectives to the fullest of my abilities.
As an educator, I am
especially committed to advancing the educational goals of CPB for all
Americans. I've been involved in academia for more than 25 years. I've taught at
the University of California at Berkeley, University of Pennsylvania, University
of Michigan, and now at the University of Maryland-College Park, where I serve
as Director of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management.
In addition, I have experience in broadcasting that includes work with
United States Information Agency, Radio Free Europe, and other federal
broadcasting units. I've also had positions within the Executive Branch,
including the National Security Council and the private sector, with the Global
Information Infrastructure Commission.
I am also strongly committed to
helping public broadcasting think through and advance, and take full advantage
of the benefits of the new digital technologies, which are so enormously
important and which my colleagues have already addressed. Much of my recent
career has been spent working on the issue of the information revolution, and
I'm currently in the process of doing a book for M.I.T. on that topic. So I
really look forward for working with my colleagues on the issue of digital
conversion.
As public broadcasting has always been a leader in putting
technology to work for the benefit of all Americans, if confirmed I will work to
ensure that public broadcasting remains a leader in developing, testing and
implementing these technologies.
For public broadcasters, the goal of
universal access means not only providing broad cat service services to
individuals living across the United States that are geographically isolated or
rural, but also reaching out to unserved or underserved populations as well. It
is important then that public broadcasting continue to ensure that underserved
communities have access to new technologies.
Technology allows adults
and children to learn of the world around them and helps all racial, ethnic and
socioeconomic groups to understand one another better.
I am committed to
working to close the digital divide in technology that exists today in our
country, and if confirmed, will work to ensure that public broadcasting
continues to meet the needs of underserved communities. By providing these
communities access to new technologies, I believe we can enhance the
opportunities for them to tell their own local stories. I believe public
broadcasting can have a significant impact to help close the digital divide.
I have been a longtime admirer of public broadcasting and believe it is
unique in being able to reach out to all Americans.
If confirmed, I hope
to serve the nation in these areas where I have some experience and I hope some
expertise to offer to the Board, especially in helping CPB meet its objectives
in education, in technology, and in digital media convergence.
I am
committed to upholding the high ideals of public broadcasting, including
balance, serving underserved and unserved audiences, and in particular
minorities, educators and children.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for the opportunity to be here today.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr.
Wilson.
I want to thank all witnesses for their willingness to serve. I
believe that all of you are well-qualified, and I appreciate again the
willingness to take up very important responsibilities.
I would like to
discuss one issue with all of you that is in the process of being addressed in
some fashion or another, either by the Congress or not by the Congress.
As you may know, recently the FCC has made a decision to allow
low-power FM stations to operate, that are low
power and these broadcasts would take place in neighborhoods and
obviously limited geographical areas because of the low power
FM status.
In the view of many including me, this is an
opportunity for churches, for neighborhood organizations, for minorities to set
up small broadcasting facilities and have an opportunity that otherwise they
would not have if they were required to set up the more elaborate, more
expensive, higher power FM facilities.
The National Association of
Broadcasters, not surprisingly, is in opposition, basing their opposition that
somehow this might interfere with other broadcasting stations.
I have
legislation that requires there to be proof that these low power
FM stations do interfere, and then they can be shut down, that
determination being made by the National Academy of Sciences. There is
legislation that is attempting to be inserted in appropriations bills and other
ways which would basically shut down low power FM stations.
Much to my surprise, National Public Radio has come out in opposition to
my legislation and in opposition to these low power FM stations
being set up. All four witnesses have talked about the necessity for diversity,
for as many Americans as possible to partake in this business, and I would hope
that you would urge the National Public Radio to reexamine their position on
this issue.
I don't expect you to respond unless you wish to on this
issue, because I don't expect you to be totally up to speed on it. But I hope
you will look at this issue, because I view it, as the FCC does, as an
opportunity for minorities, for others to have a voice that they otherwise would
not be able to take part in broadcasting.
If you would like to make any
comments, I would be glad to respond.
Mr. Cruz, you look as if --.
MR. CRUZ: I couldn't agree with you more, Senator McCain, that the idea
of the concentration of media in America as we can see has been getting into
smaller and smaller and fewer and fewer hands; and this is an excellent
opportunity, I think, for community groups and minorities and churches and
others to perhaps utilize the airways with the low power FM.
I think your efforts, with your legislation, I think is a positive step
to helping resolve that particular issue and that concern.
The concern
that we have had really is one more of technology, and it's not that we're
against the concept; it has been more of trying to find out if indeed that there
is interference.
I might add, in addition to National Public Radio we
have about sixty-some odd minority owned radio stations, public broadcasting
stations across the country. Most people just know of NPR, but there is Claudio
Bilingual, the bilingual station throughout the Southwestern part of the United
States. And there's one for Native Americans also, Radio Arrows, and several
others across the country that we already support. So we endorse that concept of
many voices and diverse voices.
But the issue has been one of the
technology influencing and interfering, and I think the suggestions of the
legislation you have offered might be a good compromise or a good way of getting
at the issue.
SEN. MCCAIN: I thank you.
Any of the other issues
would like to comment?
MS. ANDERSON: I applaud the policy and agree with
you, I would like to see more movement towards the solving of the interference
problems.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, but Ms. Anderson, I also want to make
-- it's perfectly clear. If the proposed legislation of the opponents -- who to
my understanding National Public Radio is supporting -- that will shut down
low power FM. Let's be very clear as to the effect of it,
because these people don't have the resources or the expertise to prove that
they will not interfere under any circumstances.
So let's be very clear
about the effect of pending legislation on low power FM. And I
don't think any objective observer would argue differently. No one would support
any entity beginning that would interfere with existing broadcasting that is
licensed -- it would be totally unfair.
The question is whether there be
an organization such as the National Academy of Sciences to make the judgment or
not. And that body, in my view, is perfectly qualified and objective enough to
make that decision.
So I don't want to belabor it, but I think that time
after time throughout the years that I have been to this committee, we lament
the fact that minorities, community-based organizations, religious
organizations, et cetera, do not have an opportunity. This is an opportunity and
it's about to be killed.
There ought to be a way to make sure that they
have that ability and at the same time prevent them from interfering with
existing broadcasting capability.
Senator Rockefeller.
SEN.
ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with your legislation, and I think
it's a very good solution to the problems that have been raised, including by
many who just simply don't want face competition.
I have two questions,
really. The first is more philosophical, the second is more specific.
One of the things that troubles me as a lover of classical music is that
only about four or five percent of CDs bought in this country, purchased in this
country, are classical; and all the rest is what I would refer to, with the
possible exception of bluegrass and jazz, as "junk."
Interestingly, I
just came back from a week in Thuringia, which is the province of East Germany
where Johann Sebastian Bach grew up, and we traced his footsteps in the various
places he had been to; and that is an area which has an enormous loyalty,
obviously, to him and to the music of the high baroque. All their record sales
are four to five percent for CDs.
Now I may be wrong, but it's my
general impression that although when public broadcasters refer to the number of
Americans who watch or listen to National Public Radio or television, they
always talk about 100 million people a week, but still it's about four or five
percent of the American people who listen to public broadcasting or watch public
television on a regular basis.
It's very, very disturbing. We can have
all of the talk about digital divide and technology and the rest of it, and I'm
very curious, because it comports with things that worry me about democracy, for
example; I think there's only about six percent of Americans who vote for boards
of education. We have 16,000 boards of education; typically they're placed last
on the ballot, right before the bond levy, where everybody comes out to vote
"no." And I don't know why we place them last on the ballot, but we do, so I've
always been of the mind that the local board of education is probably one of the
most important elected offices in the land. And again, the six percent factor.
So philosophically, how do you react to that, Mr. Cruz? What does CPB,
what can they do other than funding, set certain kinds of policies, to fight
that trend? I don't believe that one should accept that as a condition of the
American people. I think the condition of the American people depends upon the
forces that are applied to them or the enticements that are presented to them.
The four or five percent is not good. CPB, both public broadcasting and
public television is excellent, but the viewership is insufficient and it has
not changed in a while. I wonder how you worry about that and what you
contemplate when you think about that.
MR. CRUZ: Let me answer your
first question in terms of the classical music. I so happen to be the trustee of
the University of Southern California, and it is one of the classical stations
for public radio KUSC. There are at least eight, if memory serves me correctly,
or so dedicated classical public radio stations across the country.
And
in an effort to help them in terms of perfecting fund raising and in terms of
getting them to have a better and a higher profile of interest in reference to
classical music, we have funded several projects aimed at bringing them
together; we have one with the University of Southern California and one in the
State of Colorado where we are getting them together so that they can find
better ways of running their, if you will, subset of classic music business and
industry.
But I couldn't agree with you more. Philosophically, I don't
know why the American public doesn't take to that kind of music more or why they
don't vote and turn out -- I think these are issues that we could debate for
quite some time.
In terms of the viewership of public broadcasting,
philosophically as a whole and the loss of audience that you were saying, I so
happen to have worn that hat of the commercial side for twenty-some odd years.
On the English side for about sixteen, on the Spanish-language side for about
six. And quite frankly, Senator, sometimes I'm almost embarrassed to tell you
how I feel about what the commercial side is doing.
Clearly what drives
me with a passion, and in my belief of public broadcasting, is because of the
alternative that it does offer. Public broadcasting, study after study recently
has shown that -- at least one out of Princeton showed that 82 percent of the
American public still believed that PBS is as important if not more important
than before; indicative of the fact that they feel that we are providing a good
alternative service to the American public.
When I sit in Los Angeles in
the suburb of Orange County where I live, and I tune in to ABC News or -- not to
pick on my old networks that I worked for, it's downright embarrassing when an
hour's newscast is interrupted because they're going to have a 45-minute high
speed chase on the freeways. I mean, that is really a great news disservice and
a great disservice to the American public.
We don't do that in public
broadcasting. Whenever there are hearings pertaining to violence, violence to
children to violence in America, we are conspicuously absent from those hearings
because public broadcasting has always been a safe haven for our kids and for
our children, and that's really what motivates me and pushes me, to say nothing
of what the digital conversion technology has in store for us in the future.
Hopefully in the next four or five years when it takes over, you will
have your regular PBS schedule, and then you will have a working mother come
home at 4 or 5 in the afternoon after she picked up her child and on the PBS
Kids can see Arthur and Barney and Dragon's Tales. Or a young man who is growing
up in East Los Angeles or in South Central Los Angeles and hasn't been able to
get an advanced degree, the Adult Learning Service channel hooked up through his
local college can do that for him, late at night when they come in with that
extra channel.
So I'm very, very -- to use a business phrase, "very
bullish" on the future of public broadcasting and the things that it can really
do. We often say within staff and with public broadcasting that "Finally, the
technology has caught up with the mission of public broadcasting." Because we
look forward to the things that we can do.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Let me
just, without pursuing that, ask if you would be willing to spend a little bit
of time writing out for me what I would consider a more direct answer to the
question, which is: How do you get the four or five percent up to eight or nine
percent? In other words, CPB is the source of funding for all of these places,
and it just strikes me as something that CPB would think about, worry about, be
unhappy about, 82 percent of the people approving notwithstanding, since
obviously a lot of them aren't listening or watching.
Second question I
have stems somewhat from that. Because of the lack of, the four or five percent
or whatever the figure is exactly, PBS has shown, it seems to me, signs of
self-preservation in ways that aren't healthy. There have been a number of
instances where it seems to be they're reaching for the -- they're looking at
the bottom line more than they are at what works, and what's right for America
and what the mission that you've all talked about really is.
That's
obviously made up of stations all over the country, those station managers may
be sophisticated or not in national policy, but they have tremendous control,
enormous power; more than you all do to the point on programming. It seems to me
increasingly there is an instinct to make decisions based upon bottom line
financial considerations.
Now one can defend that, because if you're at
four or five percent, you're probably having a survival problem. Or if you're in
a small market, you may be having a survival problem, so you can't automatically
condemn that. But I just want to note for the record that it's troublesome to me
that they are perhaps willing to take a look at eliminating very, very good
programs that uplift the national consciousness about news events, whatever, in
favor of degrading what they offer because it might in a sense reflect upon what
I just said; it might attract more viewers but be of a lower quality.
Now that's a dilemma which I don't pass judgment on at this point, but
one that I'd like to raise to you and wonder if you have any thoughts at all on
that.
MR. CRUZ: It's a troubling one for us. Let me just say that for
many years, public broadcasting has almost caught itself in a Catch-22
situation: There are those who would like it to be more commercial and then
there are those who castigate it for being too commercial. And a lot of it stems
from funding, and the lack of or having to constantly meet those kinds of
budgets and goals that they must meet.
And it's a difficult one, but I
think that -- you know, were there to be adequate funding, and we could have a
discussion on what ultimately that could be, certainly is an area to pursue, to
find other alternate sources of funding.
Commercial radio in some major
markets right now, out of an hour's time probably devotes, some major markets,
to 30 minutes of commercials. On the television side, an hour on television on
prime time can have about 24 minutes of commercial time.
Fortunately,
ours is down to about three minutes or so at the beginning and at the end. So we
are very conscientious and very concerned about that, and still trying to keep
it as commercial-free as we can. But it's a difficult one because it ultimately
hinges on funding and the stations surviving. Four or five of the major stations
in public broadcasting could probably do well, but after that, many of the
others -- it's a struggle, and it's difficult for them to make it. So they must
rely on their viewers, on their subscribers to make ends meet, to meet their
budgets, and take to some underwriting to do.
But it is a concern to me.
Ultimately, if I had my druthers and had an open check, I'd like to get rid of
all the commercials, all of the underwriting in public broadcasting. But it's a
difficult budgetary dilemma.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: I thank you all, and we'll move your nominations at the
earliest time we can, and I thank you again for your willingness to serve.
This hearing is adjourned.
END
LOAD-DATE: July 15, 2000 
