« PreviousContinue »
guidelines for diagnostic procedures, and measurement of oral health status. To continue these studies and to pursue a principal objective of the Research and Action program eliminate the demographic barriers to dental care an appropriation of $150 million is requested for FY 1992.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration's Final Rule on Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens is expected to be promulgated in September.
The Association believes it is critical to effective implementation of this rule in the nation's 100,000 dental offices that clear, detailed instructions be developed and distributed in a timely fashion.
OSHA advises that it is planning a brochure for this purpose at an estimated publishing cost of $15,000. The Association has agreed to underwrite the distribution cost.
In addition, OSHA is planning to produce a 10-minute instructional video tape on implementation of the Final Rule in dental offices, at a cost of $30,000.
Accordingly, an appropriation of $45,000 is requested for these two projects.
Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Clark. The association's budget request is $247 million for NIDR and the President's request is $160.9 million. Is that correct?
Dr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Senator HARKIN. Well, I am, again, a strong supporter of the National Institute on Dental Research.
Dr. CLARK. And we certainly have appreciated that support, sir. Senator HARKIN. And again, as you know my thrust is preventative care and I can see the tremendous strides that we have made in preventing tooth decay in this country among our young people. It has been a great step forward.
Dr. CLARK. In our written statement it is pointed out and we say the American public saves $5 billion annually because of preventive dental treatment.
Senator HARKIN. Well, I appreciate what you have done, and we will do our best in getting this budget together. Dr. CLARK. Thank you very much.
Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Clark.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT TELEVISION SERVICE
Senator HARKIN. Next would be John Schott, executive director of the Independent Television Service.
Mr. SCHOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee and staff. My thanks very much for your belief in the creative vision of independent film and video producers across this country, and thanks, as well, for your support of the Independent Television Service, which is dedicated to funding and distributing the best of this independent work to public television. The Independent Television Service is intent on redirecting public television to the original founding vision of public television.
At a time now when public television dollars are going more and more to major prime-time series, whose increasingly entertain
ment-oriented subjects are often carefully designed to attract large national audiences, corporate sponsors, and new members, the Independent Television Service promises to bring viewers something very different. Our express mission is to create genuine and widespread diversity and innovation in programming and to attract new audiences to public television, including those who are presently unserved and underserved by television, that is, particularly rural and regional audiences, people of color, and programming for children.
Put simply, ITVS seeks to create a public service television, not merely a public television, and to offer viewers programming of substance which speaks directly to their lives, and in response to the many different communities from which they have come. We are looking to serve the heterogeneous needs of this country, and not merely the homogeneous audiences for the sake of ratings.
Now, ITVS was mandated by Congress to be up and operating in 1988, however, it has taken over 2 years of negotiation with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to agree to appropriate contractual terms for its creation, terms which guarantee ITVS its proper autonomy. And so we come now to Congress with two requests.
In the first case, a request that Congress clarify its language for the funding of ITVS. In the 1988 legislation, the request was the congressional language appropriated $6 million for independent producers, and then "invited the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to provide appropriate additional support for its service." Now those rather seemingly harmless words, "appropriate support", have been the subject of a great deal of friction and controversy between ITVS.
And so, in order to provide a more productive working relationship in the future, we would invite Congress to suggest that it intends, in fact, in its appropriation, to ask CPB to offer ITVS an aggregate amount, that would be the total amount of funding for both-for independent producers and for overhead of the service, for promotion, and for packaging costs. That would go a long way to developing a productive relationship between CPB and ITVŠ.
And second, for the 1994 appropriation, we would invite an increase of our funding from the current 1992 level of $8 million to $15 million. Now this may seem like a rather dramatic increase, but it has to be seen in light of a couple of facts. In the first case, PBS is now under a constant and very wide ranging process of restructuring, and so the allocation of new programming dollars, this would be part of a reallocation.
And second, we are not seeking new funds from public television, but rather, carving out of funds already offered to public television for a mission which, I believe, many people within the system, and certainly people in Congress, believe is important.
Had ITVS been funded at the time that Congress requested, it would now be offering viewers programs which deliver on its promise and would have given you demonstrable reason to request an increase in funding for its crucial work. We trust however, that this committee will see the importance, even at this date, of making an increased commitment to ITVS funding beyond the startup amount
mandated in 1988. We are, after all, talking about an appropriation for 1994, which is 3 years hence.
If this committee wants to guarantee meaningful change in public television, I hope it will recognize this is a vital opportunity to provide increased resources for ITVS's mission in the future, and to insure that it is significantly greater than an increase proportional to the growth of the CPB budget as a whole.
The Public Broadcasting System currently has put all its eggs into a big, prime-time, big-splash basket which is designed to compete with cable for large audiences. ITVS, on the other hand, is dedicated to spending its money and spreading it around the country with a variety of quality and low-budget programs which are uniquely creative and diverse.
ITVS is dedicated to funding projects which public television otherwise might not fund. And as such, it offers public television what we might think of as an incubator. When ITVS programs succeed, they will become models for similar kinds of programming in the system more generally. The net result should be to invite public television to be less adverse to risk, to discover different ways of relating to its audience, and to make it clear to audiences who have traditionally felt excluded that there is a continuing place for them on public television.
And as life-long believer in public TV, I can think of no higher mission. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHOTT
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee:
My thanks for your belief in the creative vision of independent film and video producers across the country, and thanks as well for your support of the Independent Television Service which is dedicated to funding and distributing the best of this independent work on public television. The Independent Television Service is intent on redirecting public television to the original founding vision as articulated in the Carnegie Commission Report of 1967: making it "an environment hospitable to risk, to a search for new forms, and to creative work by persons of exceptional talent. It [public television] must look to the fullest exploitation and realization of television as a medium in its own right. It must think in terms of new audiences. In the end, it may be a means by which a whole world of creative talent, which now stands aloof from television, can begin to serve and to draw strength from the diverse audiences that Public Television will reach."
At a time when public television dollars are going more and more to major prime-time series whose increasingly entertainment-oriented subjects are often carefully designed to attract large national audiences, corporate sponsors and new members, the Independent Television Service promises to bring viewers something different. Our express mission is to create genuine and widespread diversity and innovation in programming, and to attract new audiences to public television: including those presently unserved and underserved, particularly rural and regional audiences, people of color, and children. Put simply, ITVS seeks to create a public service television; to offer viewers programming of substance, programming which speaks directly and in new ways to their lives and needs, and in response to the many different communities from which they may come. ITVS is dedicated to making programs for the heterogeneous needs of our country, not following the trend of seeking the largest and most homogeneous audiences for the the sake of ratings.
No group of producers is more capable of realizing this re-dedication of public television to its original mission than our nation's independent producers. Independents comprise the thousands of smaller producing groups around the country who, up to now, have in one way or another been excluded from bringing their fresh ideas and passionate voices to public
television. But now, thanks to Congressional support, the Independent Television Service is helping to change that.
ITVS was mandated by Congress to be up and operating in 1988. However, it has taken over two years of negotiation with CPB to agree to appropriate contractual terms for its creation, terms which guarantee ITVS its proper autonomy. ITVS will receive $8 million for FY 1992. At least 5.6 million of this is set aside for independent production; the remainder, divided roughly into three equal parts, goes to providing (1) promotion and outreach services to support the programs, (2) packaging costs to insure that they will have maximum attractiveness to public television programmers, and (3) overhead and administrative costs for the service.
Had the Independent Television Service been funded at the time Congress requested, it would now be offering viewers programs which deliver on its promise, and would have demonstrable reason to request an increase in funding for its crucial work. We trust, however, that this committee will see the importance even at this date of making an increased commitment to ITVS funding beyond the start-up amount mandated in 1988. We are, after all, talking about the appropriation for 1994, three years hence. If this committee wants to guarantee meaningful change in public television, I hope it will recognize this as a vital opportunity to provide increased resources for ITVS's mission in the future, and to insure that it is significantly greater than an increase proportional to the growth of the CPB budget as a whole.
It is revealing to contrast the Independent Television Service's $8 million for FY 1992 with public television's $100 million production fund for primetime programming. Moreover, public television's prime time offering is geared to raising substantial promotion and production funding from corporate underwriting, which will more than double the $100 million. ITVS's mandate, on the other hand, is not compatible with corporate underwriting.
This subcommittee's recommendation currently provides only just over $8 million for FY 1993. I trust you agree that by 1994 the allotment should be significantly increased to allow ITVS to meet its full task. Money set aside. for the Independent Television Service may be some of the best money spent in public television: it is funding which goes directly to programs which themselves are dedicated to getting public television back on track.