Senate Stalls PBS Money, Blames ‘Bias’ : Legislation: Republicans put a ‘hold’ on measure that affects 1994 broadcasting budget. The move comes amid activity against public TV by conservative groups.

Claiming that public television has a liberal bias, Senate Republican leaders have placed a “hold” on a bill to authorize funding for the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.

The move, a delaying tactic that prevents a bill from being discussed, was put on the legislation at the behest of Republican senators, according to a senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R--Kan.).

“Several Republican senators, including Republican leader Bob Dole, are concerned about what they believe is a lack of balance,” said the aide, who requested anonymity.

Dole’s office would not say which senators requested the hold, or how long it would last. Under the procedures used for a hold, the identity of the senators who request it are kept secret.

The bill that is being held up would authorize the federal government to release approximately $275 million for public broadcasting in 1994, and slightly higher amounts for 1995 and 1996.

Public broadcasting has not yet felt any impact from the hold, because the system is funded through the end of 1993. However, if funding is delayed through the end of this year, that could cause problems in planning for 1994, officials said.

The Republicans’ move comes amid a flurry of activity against public television by conservative and right-wing groups.

Last week, the conservative Heritage Foundation released a report calling for the abolition of government support for public television. And Los Angeles conservative gadfly David Horowitz has been actively lobbying Dole and other senators, including John McCain (R-Ariz.), about what he believes is a leftist bias in PBS public-affairs programs.

Public-television officials dispute the Republicans’ claims.

“Over time, we present all sorts of points of view,” said John Lawson, director of national affairs for America’s Public Television Stations, public-TV’s lobbying arm. “But you have to realize that it’s part of the mission of journalism to question the establishment and to question existing ways of doing things and existing policies. And those policies, at least from the executive branch, have been pretty much determined by the Republican Party for quite a few years now.”

Senate Democrats say that the Republicans’ move is less a call for balanced programming than an attempt to force public broadcasting to toe the Administration line.

“Our public-broadcasting system has been set up in a way that tries to minimize the ability of government to influence the content of programming,” said a top aide to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Commerce subcommittee that oversees public television. “If we want a government station, we could just go and set one up.”

Under the current system, each public-television station may choose to air whatever programs it wishes, even to the point of refusing to air programs produced by the Public Broadcasting Service. Last year, for example, about 100 stations did not carry the controversial program “Tongues Untied,” about the experiences of black homosexuals.

The Corp. for Public Broadcasting doles out funds to local stations, the Public Broadcasting Service and other organizations, which in turn use the money for operations or to produce programs.

Such local control, the Democrats say, makes the kind of systemic bias charged by the Republicans impossible. And it keeps the government from interfering in programming.

But while Senate Democrats believe that they have enough votes on both sides of the aisle to pass the authorization bill, Republicans say they won’t release the hold until public-broadcasting officials respond to their concerns.

The Republicans put the legislation on hold during the final hours of the last session before Thanksgiving, just before the Senate was to vote on it. But it was not until last Thursday that Dole’s office contacted Senate Democrats, the Commerce subcommittee or public-television officials to explain what was going on, according to sources on both sides of the controversy.

“We were at a little bit of a disadvantage, because Congress is still out (on recess) and it’s a little difficult to get accurate and substantive information about the gravity of the situation,” said Gerald Hogan, vice president for government relations for the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.

Hogan said that he still did not know how many senators were involved, or how far they were prepared to go in their protest over perceived liberal bias.

“They obviously felt strongly enough about it to place a hold on the bill, and that, of course, concerns us,” Hogan said.

Dole’s aide said that the senators protesting the public-broadcasting bill differed in their ideological orientations and goals with regard to public broadcasting. Some want the system shut down altogether, while others simply want to express concern about what they see as bias.

“It’s unclear as to what specific actions would appease this group of senators,” Dole’s aide said. “But the senators see the authorization process as an opportunity to express their concerns.”

It’s possible, according to Senate insiders, that the senators who have put the hold on the bill simply wish to make their concerns known. If that is the case, the senators will probably insist that the authorization bill only come to the floor when they are present, so they can make speeches about it.

However, a highly placed GOP source said that the Republicans will probably ask for some concessions. In particular, the source said, conservatives in the Senate might try to keep a tighter rein on public broadcasting by changing the way it is funded. While the Corp. for Public Broadcasting currently receives funding for a three-year period, the Republicans will likely propose that the agency be funded for only one year at a time, the source said..

Action on the hold is not expected for at least two weeks, sources said. The Senate does not reconvene until Tuesday, and will have a number of issues to confront.