[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H1847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOPPING THE ASSAULT ON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the Republican assault on public
broadcasting continues. We are told that tomorrow we will be
considering H.R. 1076, which really goes further than anything that we
have considered to date. It would prohibit the purchase of any content
for public broadcasting resources using Federal money.
Now, I think we are going to see in the course of the debate some
unfortunate, and I hope unintended, consequences.
It is ironic that my Republican friends who came to Congress this
time with a pledge of regular order, that everybody would have 72 hours
to review legislation online, that we are going to have the committee
process working in a robust fashion, have again decided to violate
their own rules by rushing this to the floor without extensive
committee work and without being available for Americans to review this
legislation for 72 hours.
I don't understand why, but I can guess that if they really want to
try to pass this, they would be far better off rushing it, not having
it carefully examined.
First and foremost, the whole point of public broadcasting is the
development and broadcast of content that doesn't have commercial
value, that doesn't inspire the networks, the channels, radio and
television, to be able to sell advertising for this particular type of
program.
You will search in vain reviewing the thousands of commercial radio
and television stations, cable channels and networks, to find the type
of educational programming that we rely on PBS for, for example, to
supply to our children. There is no content for our children on the
vast commercial sea of broadcasting that doesn't come from people who
are trying to sell something to our kids, not educate them.
{time} 1020
You're at a time when news is shrinking in the commercial arena.
Newspapers are getting thinner. Broadcast networks are withdrawing
correspondence from overseas at precisely the time that the American
public needs to know what is happening in the Middle East, in Japan. At
precisely the time commercial coverage is shrinking, public
broadcasting has actually expanded coverage and, in fact, at times
devotes a lot of time and attention to boring news--boring news which
often we find is some of the most important for us to understand.
This proposal would prohibit not just purchase of NPR, which is the
target. Ironically, National Public Radio has a miniscule level of
support from the Federal Government. Most of this money flows to
provide content and programing to smaller stations in rural and small-
town America, where they don't have the financial base to be able to
provide robust public broadcasting.
We're always going to have public broadcast stations in New York and
San Francisco, Los Angeles. Even Portland, Oregon, a medium-size city,
will have that resource. It will be diminished if we don't have the
program support, but it will be there. In rural Burns, Oregon, where it
costs 11 times as much to send a signal, that's where it's going to be
hit.
Now, denying the ability to purchase content doesn't mean just NPR.
It's ``Car Talk.'' It's ``Prairie Home Companion.'' And most
significantly, in my mind, it is some of the special programs that have
been developed for the Pacific Northwest. Again, no commercial station
would do it because no advertiser will pay for it. But it serves a
market for important news that people need to have about their
communities. It's not just in the Pacific Northwest. It's in the Rocky
Mountain States, in the Upper Midwest. In fact, some of these stations
are the sole source of programming. And so by prohibiting the use of
this resource, it's going to cut them off at the knees.
Well, that's unfortunate because public broadcasting is the most
trusted name in American media. It's why Republicans and Democrats
alike don't want it cut. In fact, some would even increase it. I hope
my colleagues will listen to what the American public wants and reject
this legislation.
____________________