[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1953-H1967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          PROHIBITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 174, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1076) to prohibit Federal funding of National Public 
Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 174, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1076

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF NATIONAL PUBLIC 
                   RADIO AND RADIO CONTENT ACQUISITION.

       (a) In General.--No Federal funds may be made available--
       (1) to an organization that is incorporated as of the date 
     of the enactment of this Act for each of the purposes 
     described in subsection (c), or to any successor 
     organization;
       (2) for payment of dues to an organization described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       (3) for the acquisition of radio programs (including 
     programs to be distributed or disseminated over the Internet) 
     by or for the use of a radio broadcast station that is a 
     public broadcast station (as defined in section 397(6) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(6))).
       (b) Rules of Construction.--
       (1) Other purposes.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection 
     (a) shall not be construed to prohibit the making available 
     of Federal funds to any entity, including an entity that 
     engages in the payment described in such paragraph (2) or the 
     acquisition described in such paragraph (3), for purposes 
     other than such payment or acquisition.
       (2) Radio content acquisition by broadcasting board of 
     governors or defense media activity.--Subsection (a)(3) shall 
     not be construed to apply to the acquisition of radio 
     programs by the Broadcasting Board of Governors or the 
     Defense Media Activity.
       (c) Purposes Described.--The purposes described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) To propose, plan and develop, to acquire, purchase and 
     lease, to prepare, produce and record, and to distribute, 
     license and otherwise make available radio programs to be 
     broadcast over noncommercial educational radio broadcast 
     stations, networks and systems.
       (2) To engage in research study activities with respect to 
     noncommercial educational radio programming and broadcasting.
       (3) To lease, purchase, acquire and own, to order, have, 
     use and contract for, and to otherwise obtain, arrange for 
     and provide technical equipment and facilities for the 
     production, recording and distribution of radio programs for 
     broadcast over noncommercial educational radio stations, 
     networks and systems.
       (4) To establish and maintain one or more service or 
     services for the production, duplication, promotion and 
     circulation of radio programs on tape, cassettes, records or 
     any other means or mechanism suitable for noncommercial 
     educational transmission and broadcast thereof.

[[Page H1954]]

       (5) To cooperate and participate with foreign broadcasting 
     systems and networks in all aspects of international radio 
     programming and broadcasting.
       (6) To develop, prepare and publish information, data, 
     reports and other materials in support of or relating to 
     noncommercial educational radio programming and broadcasting.
       (7) To otherwise forward and advance the development, 
     production, distribution and use of noncommercial educational 
     radio programs, materials and services, and to assist and 
     support noncommercial educational radio broadcasting pursuant 
     to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as it may from time 
     to time be amended.
       (d) Federal Funds Defined.--
       (1) In general.--In this section, the term ``Federal 
     funds'' means, with respect to receipt by a non-Federal 
     entity from the Federal Government, the following:
       (A) Grants.
       (B) Loans.
       (C) Property.
       (D) Cooperative agreements.
       (E) Direct appropriations.
       (2) Grants or subgrants from non-federal entity.--Such term 
     also includes grants or subgrants from Federal funds made 
     available to a non-Federal entity.
       (e) Changes to Funding Formula.--Section 396(k)(3)(A) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(k)(3)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``fiscal year'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``fiscal year, such amounts shall 
     be available for distribution among the licensees and 
     permittees of public radio stations pursuant to paragraph 
     (6)(B).''; and
       (2) in clause (v)(II), by striking ``clause (ii)(II) and 
     (III)'' and inserting ``clause (iii)''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 396 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)(2)--
       (A) in the matter before clause (i) of subparagraph (B), by 
     inserting ``(except for the acquisition of radio programs)'' 
     after ``public telecommunications services''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``(except for the 
     acquisition of radio programs)'' after ``public 
     telecommunications services'';
       (2) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (3)(B)(i)--
       (i) by striking ``and subparagraph (A)(iii)(II)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``or radio'';
       (B) in the 3rd sentence of paragraph (6)(B), by striking 
     ``paragraph (3)(A)(iii)(I)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (3)(A)(iii)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7)--
       (i) by striking ``(iii)(I)'' and inserting ``(iii)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(except for the acquisition of radio 
     programming)'' before the period at the end; and
       (3) in subsection (l)(4)--
       (A) in the matter before clause (i) of subparagraph (B), by 
     striking ``(iii)(II)'' and inserting ``(iii)'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``subsection 
     (k)(3)(A)(iii)(III)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (k)(3)(A)(iii)''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``subsection (k)(3)(A) 
     (ii)(III) or (iii)(II)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (k)(3)(A)(ii)(II) or subsection (k)(3)(A)(iii)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members be given 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1076, a bill to get the 
Federal Government--and Federal taxpayers--out of the business of 
buying radio programming they do not agree with. This is a bill that is 
long overdue. Regardless of what you think of NPR, its programming or 
statements by its management, the time has come to cut the umbilical 
cord from the taxpayer support that has become as predictable as an 
entitlement program.
  Much has changed, Mr. Speaker, in the media landscape since the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created in 1967, followed by 
its creation of National Public Radio in 1970. Today, we have multiple 
listening choices. There is analog radio, digital radio, satellite 
radio, streaming radio over the Internet, and podcasts--both commercial 
and the self-published variety. Choice and available content are not 
the problem. If you want to find some content, the only question is 
where you will find it.
  In these challenging economic times, committing the taxpayer to fund 
and support particular content, including content he or she may never 
listen to, highlights this absurd anachronism of the past. It is time 
to move forward and to let National Public Radio spread its wings and 
support itself.
  This legislation does several important things. It prohibits the 
direct Federal funding of National Public Radio; and more importantly, 
it ensures that American taxpayers will not be funding through their 
tax dollars radio programming from NPR or other outlets with which they 
may not agree.
  It is also important to recognize that this bill does not do a few 
things. It does not defund public radio stations. I want to repeat 
that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is such an important point. It 
does not defund public radio stations. They still may use Federal 
funding to operate their stations or to produce their own programming. 
Public radio stations may also continue to purchase programming from 
NPR or other sources, just not with Federal taxpayer dollars. Also, 
this bill has no impact--I want to repeat that--no impact on public 
television.
  The added benefit of this legislation is that it ensures that, if 
taxpayer dollars are necessary and given to local stations, the money 
will not be used to purchase generic national programming but, instead, 
can be used to produce local content that actually will meet the needs 
of the communities in which these are located.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1076. This bill will cripple 
National Public Radio, public radio stations, and programming that is 
vital to over 27 million Americans. We are now voting to deny the 
public access to one of our Nation's most credible sources of news 
coverage. CBO has scored this bill. It does not save a penny. This 
means that this legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose, but it 
does serve an ugly ideological one.
  This legislation is not about reforming NPR. It is about punishing 
NPR. We've held no hearings on this bill. It didn't get referred to the 
committee for consideration. It's being handled as if it were an 
emergency. We don't even know all the facts, but that's apparently no 
impediment.
  For decades, decisions on Federal support for public broadcasting 
have been made 2 years in advance to insulate public broadcasting from 
politically motivated interference. This bill removes that buffer. NPR 
is now exposed to the full force of the political winds that blow 
through the House of Representatives. That means the independence and 
objectivity that public broadcasting has tried so hard to uphold is now 
subject, clearly, to political interference.
  For those who complain that they don't want content to be one way or 
the other on the political spectrum, to be honest and fair, the right-
wing Republicans are trying to impose their view of what NPR should be 
saying in the content of their programming. They will say that's not 
the case; but, Mr. Speaker, that is the case.
  There is no reason for this bill. It is vindictive, it is mean-
spirited, it is going to hit the smallest stations in rural areas 
particularly hard. Public radio is indispensable for access to news 
that's hard to get, especially where broadband service is limited.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from the 
State of California (Ms. Eshoo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Telecommunications, be allowed to control the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Madam Blackburn, for your great work that you 
do on the committee.
  I introduced H.R. 1076 because the Federal Government can no longer 
afford to fund programs that are fully capable of standing on their 
own. This is

[[Page H1955]]

not about the ideology of NPR executives or the content that NPR 
produces; but whether, in this age of trillion-dollar annual deficits, 
taxpayers should subsidize a nonessential entity.
  Plain and simple, this bill accomplishes three things. First, it 
prohibits public radio stations from using Federal funds to purchase 
programming. Current Federal law requires that about 26 percent of 
Federal grants to public radio stations be used for the production or 
acquisition of programming. Many stations use these restricted grants 
to purchase programming from NPR. These programming fees are the 
largest single source of NPR revenue at $56 million in fiscal year '10.
  Second, H.R. 1076 prohibits stations from using Federal funds to pay 
NPR dues: in fiscal year '10, over 400 member stations paid a total of 
$2.8 million in dues to NPR.
  Third, my bill prohibits direct Federal fundings of National Public 
Radio. For fiscal year '10, NPR received over $5 million in direct 
funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Departments of 
Education and Commerce, and the National Endowment for the Arts. These 
three sources of revenues I just described totaled about $64 million in 
fiscal year '10.
  Local public radio stations would not be able to use Federal tax 
dollars under this bill to purchase content, whether it's from NPR or 
any other vendor. However, under this bill, a station could use other 
dollars for the payment of NPR dues or the acquisition of programming. 
Should this bill become law, the prohibition of funds would take effect 
immediately.
  But the real issue today is the proper role of the Federal Government 
with National Public Radio and whether government programs and services 
that can be funded privately should receive taxpayer dollars. We live 
in an age of digital radio, computerized digital streaming, commercial 
all-news radio, and radio talk shows, many of which are also streamed 
on the Internet or over satellite radio; and these provide sources of 
news and opinion without Federal taxpayer dollars. NPR should do the 
same.
  With the national debt over $13 trillion, the government should 
simply not continue to fund nonessential services, and this bill is 
just one step.
  Long before any firings, videos, and executive comments at NPR, I 
sponsored legislation in Congress to pull the plug on taxpayer funding 
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR's parent company, as 
well as NPR. Last year, many of you will remember this issue came up as 
a YouCut item, and we voted in support of de-funding.
  Last month, this House passed H.R. 1. Within that bill, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting's unobligated funds for fiscal year 
'11 would be rescinded. When you couple H.R. 1 with this bill, H.R. 
1076, we end up with taxpayers having to subsidize National Public 
Radio.
  I'm a strong believer in the free market. I'd like to see NPR rework 
its business model and begin to compete for all of its income. NPR 
already receives a huge amount of funding from private individuals and 
organizations through donations and sponsorships. NPR can and should be 
entirely supported with private sources.
  In my own State of Colorado, Colorado Public Radio received in fiscal 
year '10 only 6 percent of its funding from the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. Now, according to this bill, Colorado Public Radio is 
still permitted to apply for and receive Federal grants through the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but they cannot use Federal money 
for the NPR dues or purchasing of content. They could use the other 94 
percent of their money to purchase program content. Will this 
potentially require them to review and reprioritize where money is 
spent? I'm sure it will. But will it kill its programming? No way.
  According to NPR, Federal funding to supplement operations amounts to 
less than 2 percent of its annual budget. Some have said this Congress 
should not bother with such a small amount of money. Only in Washington 
would anyone say $64 million is not worth saving. You have to start 
somewhere if you're truly serious about getting our fiscal house in 
order. If Congress cannot make difficult decisions in the small areas, 
how can we even begin to tackle entitlements or other major programs?
  If we look at the sting video that has received so much attention, 
Ron Shuler admits that NPR would be better off without Federal funding. 
There is no need for further debate. NPR does not need taxpayer 
dollars. We can save a program, or we can save our country. Americans 
want Washington to get serious about ending our overspending. If we can 
do that, the economy will get better, and we will have less 
unemployment and more jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LAMBORN. To wrap up, like many Americans, I enjoy much of NPR's 
programming; but let it live on its own. It can do that simply by 
changing its business model. Just take the taxpayer out of the 
equation.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fierce opposition to this bill which is 
going to adversely affect more than 34 million National Public Radio 
listeners through 900 local stations across our entire country.
  My Republican colleagues have declared an emergency to rush this bill 
to the floor without any hearings whatsoever to examine the proposal. I 
think that's a bad way to do business.

                              {time}  1340

  We have many emergencies to deal with in our country, but attacking 
and crippling NPR is hardly an emergency. And it does it in a very 
sneaky back-door way. What the bill does is it cuts off the use of all 
Federal funding to NPR by preventing any grants to it. It prevents any 
support to NPR by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and it 
prevents support to NPR programming from public radio stations across 
the country. In other words, it cripples it, it hobbles it, which is 
really what the majority is seeking to do.
  This proposal is not going to do anything about reducing the deficit. 
The CBO has weighed in. It doesn't cut any Federal spending. In fact, 
the bill doesn't produce one penny in savings. What's very clear is 
what it does do, and it's really purposeful. And that is to hobble NPR, 
threatening 9,000 jobs at stations across the country. Why? I think the 
motivations behind this effort are quite clear: They are rooted in an 
ideological view about what NPR broadcasts, and it capitalizes on 
recent headlines involving Ron Schiller and Juan Williams. This attack 
on NPR strikes at the core of a wide array of NPR programming that 
Americans enjoy every single day, all week long across the country, 
from ``The Diane Rehm Show'' to ``Morning Edition'' and two of my 
favorites, ``Car Talk'' and ``World of Opera.'' I acknowledge that our 
Nation faces threats, but ``Car Talk'' is hardly one of them, and 
neither is ``Diane Rehm.'' Silencing what some disagree with--make no 
mistake about it--is a threat to our democracy. A great democracy does 
not silence voices. We want many voices to the many.
  NPR programming reaches more than 900 independently owned and 
operated stations across the country, from San Francisco's KQED, the 
most listened to public radio station in the country with more than 
740,000 listeners each week, to small rural stations like that of the 
chairman of the subcommittee, KCUW in Pendleton, Oregon. These stations 
provide an important public service to the local community, and people 
trust it, and they enjoy it. They want it. They like it. This is 
national programming with local listenership.
  And NPR's listenership has increased, unlike other stations, by 72 
percent over the last 10 years. A recent national survey found--and 
that's why I think this is an ill-begotten proposal by the majority. 
You say you listen to the American people. I think you have to take the 
plugs out of your ears. A recent national survey found that almost 70 
percent of all voters across the entire political spectrum oppose 
terminating the funding for public broadcasting, including 56 percent 
of Republicans in the country.
  So I think it's time to stand up for NPR. I think that this is a 
phony emergency measure, and I don't think NPR deserves to be treated 
this way. I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve really what I think 
is a national treasure. It provides in very tough times very

[[Page H1956]]

clear and important news and information to instruct our country and 
listeners in local communities around our Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, let's really be honest and talk about what this bill is 
about. This bill is about making sure that we are spending taxpayer 
dollars the way that the people that earned them would spend them. And 
we saw, as the gentlelady from California indicated, on video 
executives at NPR saying that they don't need taxpayer dollars. So 
that's number one. That's out there. That was demonstrated for all of 
America to see. We are also in the process of making sure that 
Washington begins to do what every American family and small 
businessperson is having to do right now. It's called tightening the 
belt. It's called trying to learn how to do more with less. And 
inherently, what that means is, we have got to start prioritizing the 
things that are important to the American people.
  The problem is, we have seen NPR programming and its programming 
often veer far from what most Americans would like to see as far as the 
expenditure of their taxpayer dollars. That's the bottom line. Nobody 
is on a rampage. Nobody is trying to say that we don't like NPR for 
NPR's sake. We have seen how they spend their money. So that's why we 
are saying, it's time to prioritize. It's time to reflect the common 
sense of the American people. And that's why the bill takes the form 
that it does. It says that we have got to, number one, listen to the 
executives at NPR who say that they don't need taxpayer funding.
  Well, listen, we are all about looking for ways to cut right now and 
save on both sides of the aisle. We ought to take that advice for what 
it is. But we also know that NPR takes its funding and benefits from 
taxpayer dollars through the payments of local stations across the 
country. So what we are saying by this bill, those stations are not 
going to be starved from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants, 
unlike the lady indicated. What they are going to be told is, You are 
not going to be using those taxpayer dollars for programming because we 
have seen how NPR has used that funding and the kind of programming 
that has been involved.
  We are trying to find commonality. Our country is made up of much 
diversity with people of a lot of differing opinions. Why should we 
allow taxpayer dollars to be used to advocate one ideology? Why should 
we? We shouldn't. We should insist that our taxpayer dollars are 
prioritized, and the people's interests of this country are honored. 
That's why I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our 
distinguished colleague from our beautiful State of California, 
Congresswoman Doris Matsui.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1076. I can't 
believe what I am hearing from the other side of the aisle. It's not a 
lefty-type organization. This bill would prohibit public radio stations 
from using Federal funds to buy popular programs like ``Morning 
Edition,'' ``All Things Considered,'' and ``This American Life.'' Mr. 
Speaker, this would be a huge disruption to our Nation's public radio 
system, economy, and most importantly, the intellectual content and 
news that so many Americans rely upon.
  According to a recent study, NPR's overall audience grew last year to 
over 27 million weekly listeners, up 60 percent overall since 2000. And 
this is when most other media outlets are struggling.
  And as a former board chair of Sacramento's local PBS TV station, I 
can attest to the value that national public broadcasting programming 
offers to my constituents. Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents 
rely on local NPR stations to get their news, and this is a very 
diverse group. In fact, since this bill was introduced, I have received 
a significant number of calls from them voicing very strong support for 
NPR and very, very strong opposition to this legislation. One of my 
constituents told me that listening to NPR makes him a more informed, 
more engaged citizen.
  Moreover, this bill will not produce any savings for the taxpayer and 
will not reduce the deficit. For my constituents, it's a simple 
equation of value for money.

                              {time}  1350

  And also, this is about jobs. We need to talk about jobs. Public 
radio stations employ over 9,000 workers across the country, including 
40 in Sacramento. Mr. Speaker, these are jobs we cannot lose.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful legislation.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 
minutes to one of our new freshman Members, the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Crawford), who is a broadcaster and brings that expertise to this 
Chamber.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1076.
  As a broadcaster, I understand the importance of the free 
marketplace, the freedom to express yourself, but to do it on your own 
merit.
  I brought an idea to the marketplace to develop a radio news network, 
started with four stations, and within 4 years was able to grow that to 
50 stations serving five States. I did not ask for one thin dime from 
the Federal Government.
  I think freedom to succeed in this country has to exist also with the 
freedom to fail. We have an open marketplace. We have an opportunity to 
sell advertising around the ideas that we express on the radio.
  I'm a success story in using the open marketplace, the freedom to 
succeed. But it also comes with the freedom to fail. And earlier in the 
year, or last year, rather, I started a radio station, a small venture. 
I populated that staff with folks that were on unemployment; so I know 
what it means to create jobs.
  And certainly this is not about further burdening our taxpayer with 
support of an industry that is perfectly capable of supporting itself.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Crisis averted, ladies and gentlemen. What a relief. What 
a relief. I'm glad we got the economy back going. I'm glad we've 
secured our nuclear power plants. I'm so glad that Americans are back 
to work.
  We finally found out our problem. We discovered a target that we can 
all agree upon. It's these guys. This is the problem. It's Click and 
Clack, the Tappet brothers. We're finally getting rid of them. Thank 
God we solved this problem for the country.
  Now, let's look at the record here. For one, they talk in that Boston 
accent. ``Cah'' talk. It's a ``car.'' I need to call Congressman 
Capuano whenever they're on the air.
  Secondly, they talk about master cylinders and slave cylinders. It's 
kinky. I am glad my Republican friends are finally getting to the 
bottom of this.
  And then with all the giggling and snorting that they do every 
weekend on their show, it's got to be some kind of a code. They're 
clearly talking to the Russians or the Chinese or something with all 
that giggling and snorting.
  It is fine. I'm so relieved that we had this emergency session, that 
we waived the rules of the House that require 72 hours so we finally 
get these guys off my radio. Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers on 
``Car Talk.'' I know it. Because these guys, clearly they're political. 
Well, I don't know if they're political. They make no sense about most 
of what they say.
  But you know what? I'm glad we're finally not going to have to listen 
to them. I'm glad the Republican Party finally said enough of Click and 
Clack, the Tappet brothers. That clearly was what the American people 
said in campaign 2010. Clearly it's in their contract with America or 
something; right? Get rid of Click and Clack?
  It's about time, I have to say, because the last thing we want is 
informative solutions to how we fix our cars and the Car Talk Puzzler. 
And think about all the people we're finally going to put out of work, 
you know, their Customer Care Rep, Heywood Yabuzzoff--I'll tell you how 
to spell this later, I say to the stenographer--and the Director of 
Ethics, Youlyin

[[Page H1957]]

Sack, all of these guys that finally are going to be taken off the 
public payroll.
  The Republican Party, no one can say they're not in touch. They get 
it. They understand where the American people are. The American people 
are not concerned about jobs or the economy or what's going on around 
the world. They're staring at their radio saying, Get rid of Click and 
Clack. Finally my Republican friends are doing it.
  Kudos to you.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in 
violation of the rules of the House.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a 
highly respected member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Doyle.
  And Happy St. Patrick's Day.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, today the House Republicans want to eliminate 
funding for NPR, some because they think the government shouldn't 
operate a news service and some because they think the reporting is 
biased. I believe they're wrong on both counts.
  Public radio plays an important role in our communities as a source 
of news and entertainment. My colleagues should consider the studies 
that show that NPR listeners are more aware of indisputable facts than 
viewers and listeners of most other news sources.
  Opponents of NPR hold up a video hit piece to show that NPR is 
biased. Even Glenn Beck's Web site, The Blaze, explains that the video 
is neither fair nor balanced, how it's basically a lie.
  And my colleagues should consider the fact that many NPR programs 
have nothing to do with news or politics. Where's the bias in ``Car 
Talk''? There might be a bias against Pintos or Pacers, but not a 
political bias. Where's the political bias in music broadcasts? There 
might be a bias against Prokofiev, but not a political bias.
  Even so, if this bill were simply to defund NPR's direct public 
contribution, then at least it would only impact the organization with 
the alleged political bias, which is, again, based on a lie. But this 
bill goes further. It hurts local public radio stations and tens of 
millions of listeners from across the country.
  If this bill is enacted, communities across the country will be 
denied programming that their residents want. Whatever happened to the 
philosophy that more choice is better?
  My colleagues, this is bad public policy. This is a terrible bill. 
This is a terrible waste of our time, and I urge my colleagues to 
reject it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up what I think are 
probably a couple of misunderstandings that my colleagues have across 
the aisle.
  One of the things I think it's important for everyone in this Chamber 
to realize, and I know some want to make fun of the fact that we're 
here talking about $100 million, $92 million, $67 million, different 
funding that goes in and through NPR. Mr. Speaker, every single penny 
that comes from the taxpayer is important. And every single penny that 
we appropriate comes from those taxpayers, and we are charged with 
being good stewards of that money. Changing the structure in which NPR 
does their business, as Mr. Lamborn said, looking at that business 
model, this is a step that we can take to save those taxpayer dollars. 
This is a step that is going to change that business model and free 
NPR.
  Now, contrary to what some across the aisle are saying, this doesn't 
take NPR off the air. What this does is to say, NPR, you've got to get 
out of the taxpayers' pocket, because the taxpayer is not going to 
allow those taxpayer dollars to be spent to pay those NPR dues and to 
buy that NPR programming.
  Now, another misconception that seems to be out there is about jobs 
and saying that programming is going to be denied because these 
stations won't be able to use taxpayer money to acquire some of this 
government NPR programming. Let me tell you, what we're doing is 
empowering these local radio stations, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that 
our colleagues understand this.

                              {time}  1400

  We are turning to these local affiliates and saying, look, there are 
still going to be grants out there. You can create your own 
programming.
  This is a great jobs program for these local radio stations. This is 
telling them you don't have to buy programming you don't want and that 
your listeners really don't want to listen to.
  We are saying, get creative. Get that American spirit to work just as 
Mr. Crawford was talking about. Find a niche in your marketplace and 
create a program.
  Do you want to talk about the jobs that are created? Every time that 
you create a new radio show, you have got a writer, an editor, a 
producer, a director, a sound engineer, a sound tech, a systems 
engineer. You have got post-production work to take place. You have got 
a host. You have got a call screener, you have got a board operator, 
you have got a research assistant working with that writer and working 
with that editor. You have got a sales and marketing team working. You 
have got advertisers that are looking; now, of course NPR calls them 
sponsors. You have affiliate relations teams that are working. And you 
also have attorneys that are working on the intellectual property to 
make certain that they protect that content.
  So I would just encourage my colleagues across the aisle here to 
remember, this is about freeing up those local radio stations. It is 
about getting NPR out of the taxpayer pocket. It is making certain that 
we are good stewards of the taxpayer money.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. I would just like to add something here, and that is that 
one of the mantras of our friends on the other side of the aisle was 
``read the bill.''
  If the gentlewoman from Tennessee would read the bill, she would know 
that there is not one dime, not one cent that is saved in this bill. 
And what this bill does is you can talk all you want about NPR and how 
much you love it, but what you are doing is killing off the local 
stations from being able to have the money to buy NPR's programming. So 
you are hurting local broadcasting.
  I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished woman from 
the Santa Barbara, California area, a valued member of the committee, 
Congresswoman Lois Capps.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this effort to defund 
public radio.
  Right now, millions of Americans tune in to NPR stations across the 
country for one reason, the consistency of the high quality of its 
programming. In a world awash by often ill-informed and sensationalist 
cable news and ever louder voices, public broadcasting provides 
thoughtful, even-handed analysis of the issues of the day. And they do 
it every day. The bill before us seeks to end that. It is nothing more 
than an effort to cripple NPR by crippling our local public radio 
stations.
  The bill would decimate local NPR stations by restricting their 
ability to choose programming best suited to their community.
  In my district, NPR stations like KCLU, KCRW, and KCBX provide 
valuable international and domestic news. They bring ``All Things 
Considered,'' ``Morning Edition,'' and ``Car Talk'' into our cars and 
our living rooms. But these stations also cover local news, concerts, 
local and school events. They produce shows like ``Ears on the Arts,'' 
``Community Calendar,'' and ``From Ballet to Broadway.'' The bill 
throws all that out the window.
  NPR reports and media coverage are consistently even-handed, driven 
by a high standard of journalistic ethics. They are not politically 
biased. NPR lets the stories do the talking, not the commentators. And 
apparently the public, the tax-paying public, likes that.
  According to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, in the 
last year the television networks' audience slipped 3.5 percent, 
newspapers were down 5 percent, radio fell 6 percent, magazines were 
down almost 9 percent. NPR, up 3 percent. Since 2000, NPR's audience is 
up 58 percent. In the last

[[Page H1958]]

year, it's Web site, npr.org, drew an average of 15.7 million unique 
monthly visitors, up more than 5 million visitors.
  This is a reflection of the quality of its programs and its 
dedication to its mission. Public broadcasting helps educate our 
society, celebrates the arts, education, respectful debate, and civil 
discourse. NPR and the 900-plus local stations are valuable resources 
for our country.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for public broadcasting and oppose 
this legislation.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, since the previous speaker talked a 
little bit about NPR and its listening audience, I would like to make 
certain that the record reflects a little bit about that listening 
audience.
  We know that more men than women listen to NPR, except for the 
classical music, which is 48 percent female. Baby boomers are a big 
part of their audience.
  We also know that NPR, according to their Web site, says that their 
audience is extraordinarily well educated. Nearly 65 percent of all 
listeners have a bachelor's degree, compared to only a quarter of the 
U.S. population.
  We also know that they are wealthy listeners, Mr. Speaker. NPR 
households tend to be more affluent than other households as a result 
of their educational attainment. The median household income of an NPR 
news listener is about $86,000, compared to the national average of 
about $55,000.
  We also know that when it comes to geography, more than 99 percent of 
the U.S. population has access to at least one NPR station. And then, 
when it comes to employment, the majority of NPR listeners, 63 percent, 
are employed full time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat the point. The object of this today is 
to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is time for us to do this. 
It is time for this structure to be changed. It is time for us to be 
good stewards and save the money of the American taxpayer. This is 
another step toward that goal.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Congresswoman Tammy 
Baldwin from Wisconsin, a highly valued member of the committee.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill which 
prohibits Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of 
Federal funds to acquire radio content.
  I am incredibly disappointed in my Republican colleagues for this 
needless attempt to cripple NPR and threaten thousands of jobs in the 
public broadcasting community. Without so much as a single hearing on 
this subject, this bill dissolves a vital public radio system depended 
upon by millions of Americans across the country.
  Twenty-seven million Americans listen to NPR each week, and back home 
in Wisconsin nearly 450,000 people listen to Wisconsin Public Radio 
weekly over three statewide networks. In addition, 2.3 million visitors 
visited the Wisconsin Public Radio Web site in 2010.
  Those who listen to Wisconsin Public Radio know how much there is to 
love. Wisconsin Public Radio provides over 9 hours each weekday of 
interactive radio programming, engaging Wisconsin residents and experts 
from around the world in public policy, culture, arts, and educational 
discussions. And because Wisconsin is largely a rural State, our 
citizens rely on over-the-air broadcasting more than almost any other 
State. This means that Wisconsin audiences significantly rely on public 
radio.
  Not only would this horrible bill, rushed before us today, cripple 
local radio stations and programming that we enjoy in Wisconsin; it 
severely harms listeners' access to national shows, like ``Morning 
Edition,'' ``All Things Considered,'' ``This American Life,'' ``A 
Prairie Home Companion,'' and one of my personal favorites, ``Whad'ya 
Know,'' among many others.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is clearly not interested in 
creating jobs or dealing seriously with this deficit. Despite all of 
the talk, we are here today considering legislation that attacks public 
radio. I strongly oppose this bill, and I strongly urge all of my 
colleagues to do so, too.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to rise in support of this bill. The 
Federal Government has a few constitutional duties, and we seem to have 
taken on a lot of Federal responsibilities. As time goes on, every time 
we see a need, we think we have to tap into the taxpayers and create 
another government function. But this is not one of those functions 
that is an enumerated power of the United States Congress. It is not 
something that we are compelled to do. It is something that is 
discretionary. We are into operations at a time of austerity, a time 
when we see what's happened as a prelude to the American economy, if we 
just look over to Europe, in places like, oh, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, 
Greece, Spain, for example. That's the direction we're heading with our 
economy. And as we see this discretionary spending grow along with our 
entitlements grow and our economy contract, we also need to take a look 
at these items that are at our discretion as to whether or not to fund.
  I think that the image that we have seen on the videos tells us 
something about the internal culture of NPR. If you haven't seen the 
videos, or if you've just seen the little text in there, that doesn't 
give you the real sense of what was going on in that conversation with 
Mr. Schiller at that table for 2 hours that day. If you look at the 
whole video, you'll see, the cast of the character and the content 
reflected, the culture of NPR; in the same way, in my view, that the 
videos of ACORN reflected accurately the actual internal culture of 
ACORN. We shut off the funding to ACORN for that reason. Of all the 
data that we've put out on ACORN, you couldn't be convinced to shut off 
the funding until you saw the reality of the video.
  Then we looked into Planned Parenthood, and of all the data that was 
brought out here to the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker--and I 
compliment Mike Pence for doing so and all of those who stood with him 
and for life--still, the American people didn't understand the real 
culture of Planned Parenthood until they saw the video.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady.
  Of all the data that we've seen, we still had not absorbed the real 
culture of NPR, until we saw the video of that dinner, those 2 hours 
that day.
  So I stand in support of this act and this resolution, and I believe 
it's time for us to draw a bright line in our budget and cut this 
funding. I will be voting to adopt the cutting of the funding, as will 
my colleagues.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have left on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 13 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. ESHOO. Thank you.
  I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Congressman Ed Markey, whom I think possesses the 
broadest and the deepest knowledge about telecommunications in the 
Congress.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, in an era when Edwardian drama is the only way to 
characterize the way in which cable news deals with the public affairs 
of our country, there is an oasis of real news that begins with Morning 
Edition, goes right through the day to All Things Considered, which 
focuses on that most unusual of all subjects, hard news, that the 
American people can use to make judgments about the affairs of our 
country and the affairs of the world. It is an oasis of information 
that is supplemented, yes, by Lake Woe Begone, On Point, other programs 
that raise the cultural level but serve as a place where people, 170 
million Americans, can go to get real information.
  Now what is this debate all about? Well, it's really about an ancient 
animosity which the Republican Party has had to the very creation of 
NPR, through Newt Gingrich, through the

[[Page H1959]]

early years of the 21st century, right up to today where it's on a list 
of grievances which they have about this ability of NPR to provide this 
news and information. That's what the debate's about. You don't have to 
be Dick Tracy to figure out what this debate is all about. They have 
right from the very beginning of the creation of this network wanted to 
destroy it.
  I think that they are going to run into a razor blade sharp edge 
reaction from the American public as they find that, in place of 
Morning Edition and Car Talk and All Things Considered, they want to 
move to radio silence, and when the American people find out about 
that, they are going to be outraged.
  I would vote ``no'' and urge strongly a ``no'' vote for all Members 
of this body.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address one thing. This is not an ancient 
animosity. I don't think I'm quite that old. And I don't think you have 
to be Dick Tracy to figure out what this debate is about. This debate 
is about saving taxpayer money. We do not have a revenue problem in 
this town. We have a spending problem in this town. The Federal 
Government does not have the money to fund these programs. We are 
borrowing 42 cents of every single dollar that we spend. We have to get 
the spending under control. We have to get an environment where the 
American people can get back to work. And we're talking about funding 
for NPR.
  I just gave the demographics. It is a wealthy, educated listening 
audience. If people want this programming, Mr. Speaker, they're going 
to be willing to pay for it. But the American taxpayer has said, get 
NPR out of our pocket.
  I pulled the sponsors for NPR, and I think my colleagues would be 
interested in this. When you go to the NPR Web site and you start 
pulling the sponsors, they don't sell advertising, but they do have 
many sponsors. They have some sponsors that land in the $1 million plus 
category. And then they list sponsors all the way down to $5,999. This 
is how wealthy the sponsorship base and the subscribership base is for 
them. It is time for us to remove the Federal support system that they 
have relied on. They have told us they do not need the money. We need 
to cut the umbilical cord. We need to see what NPR can do on their own.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House of 
Representatives, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California for her yielding me this time, and I commend her for her 
opposition to this outrageous piece of legislation.
  I rise in strenuous opposition to H.R. 1076, visited upon us without 
any attention to regular order, hastened to the floor in defiance of 
the commitments of the Speaker, and without any hearings or 
consideration by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. No opportunity 
for the public to speak or to be heard on what we're doing.
  The majority continues to force Members of this body to waste time 
and energy of the House, a critical asset of this Nation, on political 
witch-hunts with respect to health care and the environment. Now we 
find that we're adding public broadcasting to this list.
  Public broadcasting is a national treasure. It provides us impartial, 
honest coverage of facts and news. It provides information not 
available elsewhere. And, yes, it sheds a little bit of culture on our 
people, something which probably my Republican colleagues find 
offensive. It has done so at very low cost to the public, with huge 
contributions from the people for the support of this.
  This legislation is going to prohibit local stations like Michigan 
Radio in Ann Arbor, and in your own districts and in your States, from 
using money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to acquire or 
produce any public radio programs. As regards process, we are 
completely evading the processes and the commitments that are to be 
found in the rules and the pronouncements of the leadership on the 
other side. And we are finding that the history of this, which goes 
back to the 1934 Communications Act in the Commerce Committee, has been 
grossly disregarded.
  So much for regular order. And so much for transparency that the 
majority made such a big fuss about at the beginning of this year. 
What's next? Are we going to amend the Endangered Species Act on the 
floor to declare an open season on Big Bird? Or upon programs which 
educate our kids or which contribute to the advancement of our society?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1076. It's a bad bill.

                              {time}  1420

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is the chairman of the House Caucus on 
Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentlelady.
  I want to make five basic points.
  Number one, there are no savings to the taxpayer in this bill. It 
simply passes on higher costs and fewer choices to local stations.
  Second, it is not going to stop NPR, which will go on in New York and 
Los Angeles and even Portland, Oregon. What it will cripple is what 
happens in smaller local stations around the country who rely on NPR 
and other public broadcasting entities for their content.
  My good friend from Tennessee just went through all the steps that 
are necessary to produce local content. That is complex and it is 
expensive. That is why they voluntarily buy ``Morning Edition'' or 
``Prairie Home Companion'' or ``Car Talk.''
  NPR never said it didn't need the money. They are relying on a 
discredited video that was exposed by Glenn Beck's Web site, of all 
places. Our friends should talk to the thousands of volunteers at home 
who rely upon public broadcasting resources to provide the content that 
Americans love.
  Reject this travesty.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, in response to this statement that there 
are no savings, may I point my colleagues to a CRS report on the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal funding and issues, and I 
will be happy to submit this for the Record.
  Reading from it: ``NPR, Incorporated, which oversees the NPR system, 
states that annually NPR receives direct funding in the range of $1.5 
million to $3 million from three Federal agencies and the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting. Those are the National Endowment for the Arts, 
the CPB, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, and the Department of Education.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is you can't do that anymore. 
This is one of the steps that we have to take in order to straighten 
out this budgeting process. Our country does not have the money to 
spend on this. NPR does not need the money. They will not be able to 
get these grants. We will save those dollars.
  The American taxpayer has said, Get your fiscal house in order. This 
is a step in that process. I know they don't like it, but, you know 
what? This is something we can do. This is something we will do. This 
is something the American people want to make certain that we do so 
that we get this Nation back on a firm fiscal and sound fiscal policy.
  The day has come that the out-of-control Federal spending has to 
stop. A good place to start is by taking NPR out of the taxpayer's 
pocket.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlelady from California.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1076 to defund National Public 
Radio. Overwhelmingly, my Rhode Island constituents agree, this 
legislation is no more than an ideological attack on public 
broadcasting masquerading as a fiscal issue. That is because Federal 
funding accounts for less than three-thousandths of one percent of the 
annual Federal budget. In addition to that, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office says this legislation will not reduce the 
deficit by a single penny.

[[Page H1960]]

  Without as much as a hearing, this legislation undermines public 
broadcasting, a system that 34 million Americans turn to weekly and in 
which Americans across the political spectrum place high trust.
  These funding restrictions will devastate the economy of public 
radio. It will harm local stations. It will inhibit their ability to 
attract audiences, develop stable local revenue bases, and, most 
importantly, their ability to continue to produce local programming. 
Public broadcasting gives voice to the smallest and most diverse 
communities in our country. I know firsthand the high quality 
broadcasting the NPR provides in Rhode Island and all across this 
country.
  It would also endanger 9,000 jobs at local public radio stations and 
communities across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this assault on the free 
exchange of ideas and instead support a democracy that continues to 
listen carefully to its people.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is one of the great 
advocates of public broadcasting in the Congress.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition. 170 million Americans use 
public media for vital news. Sixty-one percent of voters who support 
deficit reduction also support funding for public broadcasting. Yet the 
assault on public broadcasting continues, when jobs and the economy 
should be our top priority.
  This outrageous bill would prohibit public radio stations from using 
Federal funds to acquire any radio programming from any outside source. 
That means that your local stations may not be able to air quality 
programming.
  We were not sent here to silence ``Prairie Home Companion,'' ``Car 
Talk'' and ``Morning Edition.'' Let's stop trying to put Diane Rehm out 
of work and focus on putting more Americans back to work.
  Reject this bill.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the chairman of 
the House Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. I 
wish her a happy St. Patrick's Day.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here. Americans are seeing through 
what amounts to an ideological purge.
  In Wisconsin, under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they are 
taking away collective bargaining rights.
  In Washington, under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they are 
cutting Planned Parenthood and taking away women's rights.
  Under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they are planning to 
privatize Social Security and voucher Medicare, as if they had anything 
to do with causing the deficit and the problem we are in.
  And under the guise of saving taxpayers' dollars, what they are doing 
is silencing NPR, not because it saves money, but because it is not on 
the same ideological frequency of the extreme right.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when is the majority going to try to solve 
a real problem? The reaction to unemployment is ``so be it.'' The 
reaction to an immoral Afghanistan policy is a big shrug. But a modest 
investment in educational, commercial-free programming, now, that is a 
national crisis. I guess they figure if they can't catch bin Laden, 
they might as well go after ``A Prairie Home Companion.''
  Public broadcasting, Mr. Speaker, performs a vital function in a 
democracy. It is also twice as popular as the Afghanistan war, and it 
supports 21,000 jobs. That is 21,000 jobs more than the Republican 
agenda would create.
  Vote against H.R. 1076.

                              {time}  1430

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. While Republicans insist today that NPR is a four-letter 
word, the real attack is on KUT and similar public radio across 
America. Two hundred fifty thousand Texans rely upon KUT's in-depth 
radio news scrutiny of the Texas legislature and local government. The 
only ``bias'' of those who begin with Morning Edition is a bias for 
truth. My constituents tune in to KUT because they want fact-based, not 
faux-based, not FOX-based coverage.
  Like their continued assault on PBS, these Republicans just can't 
tell the difference between Big Government and Big Bird. While they 
pander to Wall Street, they continue to want to terminate support of 
Sesame Street. ``All Things Considered,'' their attack really has 
nothing to do with balancing the budget. It is an ideological crusade 
against balanced news and educational programing. Cutting access to the 
power of knowledge decreases our ability to hold our government 
accountable. Don't weaken our democracy by weakening this vital source 
of reality-based journalism.
  Don't cut KUT. Public radio serves the public interest.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to one of 
our freshman Members, the gentleman from the Florida Panhandle (Mr. 
Southerland).
  (Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. We talk about Big Bird and that sounds wonderful. We 
had a couple of Big Birds in my family. We have four small children, 
and they love Big Bird.
  But I will tell you this: When the CEO of Sesame Street is 
compensated $956,000 in 2008 compensation, that's over double what the 
leader of the free world makes. Think about that: $956,000, when, in 
the same year, Sesame Street received $211 million in toy and consumer 
product sales.
  So to stand here and say that we have the luxury at this incredibly 
critical crisis moment in our deficit struggles that we have the luxury 
of making sure that PBS can pay Mrs. Kerger $632,000 in salary, and 
that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can pay its President and 
CEO $300,000 apiece, I mean, really. Are we serious? Are we serious?
  We can do better. We must do better.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. ESHOO. At this time I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman, the 
great Irishman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, National Public Radio has the strongest 
intellectual, artistic, and informational in-depth content of any radio 
network in this country because its content is not compromised by 
corporate ownership. I love it. But I won't lose it.
  It's the rural stations that depend on NPR for half their budget. 
They can't afford to lose this national asset, nor can the 36 million 
people who rely on emergency alerts from NPR in times of crisis. The 
commercial market won't do that because there's no profit in it. Nor 
can the visually and hearing-impaired afford to lose the technology NPR 
developed.
  This has nothing to do with the deficit. It's an infinitesimal 
fraction of our national debt. It jeopardizes 9,000 jobs, and it 
distracts us from solving the real problems that this Nation faces 
while trying to destroy one of the primary sources of an enlightened 
electorate.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is one of those things 
that's kind of what's wrong around here. Everybody says, Don't do this, 
don't do this; that's not much money, that's not much money. Mr. 
Speaker, it all adds up. And the American people have had it with the 
Federal Government spending money they do not have.
  With that I yield 1 minute to a wonderful new Member who has joined 
us, the gentlewoman from Dunn, North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation.
  Let us be clear: This legislation would simply prohibit direct 
Federal

[[Page H1961]]

funds--taxpayer money--from being made available to National Public 
Radio, or as we know it, NPR, and would prohibit public radio stations 
from using Federal funds to pay for their NPR dues. The bill would 
prohibit public radio stations from using Federal funds for the 
production or acquisition of programing.
  I want to be very clear: I am in support of the arts. However, I do 
not believe that NPR has the right to public funds from our hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars when they receive plenty of funding from private 
sources. These prohibitions would not affect a local radio station's 
ability to use Federal funding for their operations or for the 
reduction of their own programing. NPR already receives direct Federal 
funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Department of 
Education, Department of Commerce, and the National Endowment for the 
Arts. They also get a considerable amount of money from local radio 
stations. Why do they need more?
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield 1 minute to the brilliant, brilliant gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, NPR provides news and cultural enrichment--yes, 
enrichment--that adds value to the lives of millions of Americans. It 
reaches into all parts of our country, even into that fact-free 
universe where the other side seems to be living, saying that factual 
information is somehow a liberal bias.
  We talk about the need for a well-informed public. Just this morning, 
we had a reminder of the benefits that NPR brings to America. Today, 
there was a news report on the slow progress the U.S. Army is making 
towards seeing that wounded soldiers get the Purple Hearts they 
deserve. General Chiarelli, the Army's second in command, remarked in 
this story that it was previous reporting by NPR that was removing the 
confusion and the misunderstanding that had prevented the serving 
soldiers from getting the Purple Heart recognition. This is good 
reporting. The other side seems to think that this is, that this is, 
this is--wait, wait, don't tell me--biased reporting.
  We need NPR.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield my remaining 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, a study conducted by the Center for 
International and Security Studies found that those who said they 
received most of their news from NPR were only about one-fourth as 
likely to hold a demonstrably false belief about important issues 
relating to the Iraq war as those who primarily consumed news from our 
colleagues' favorite news channel. A similar study conducted last year 
on mainly economic issues produced similar results. Those who primarily 
listened to NPR were considerably less likely to hold demonstrably 
false beliefs.
  So now our colleagues across the aisle want to pull the plug on NPR, 
one of the most accurate sources of demonstrably true news and 
information. Our colleagues want to fire the messenger. This is not a 
move to create jobs or save money. This is a move to save face at the 
expense of truth. And I believe that such a move comes at a price that 
we simply cannot afford to pay.
  This country needs NPR. Vote against the Republican bill.

                              {time}  1440

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do think our colleagues across the aisle are missing 
the point on this. We are responsible for making certain that this 
fiscal house gets in order. This is just another of those steps. This 
bill is not about taking NPR off the air. There is nothing here that 
says you will take NPR off the air.
  What it simply says is, if you are an affiliate station and if you 
want to pay NPR dues, you can't use taxpayer dollars. If you want to 
buy NPR programming, you cannot use taxpayer dollars for that. The 
taxpayers want NPR out of their pockets. Now, there is plenty of 
popular programming out there, and if listeners want to hear that, we 
are not trying to disenfranchise those listeners. Indeed, if listeners 
like the NPR they have, they can keep it. What we're saying is that 
they need to raise the money for this.
  We went through the demographics for NPR: college-educated; 63 
percent have full-time jobs; the average household income is upwards of 
$86,000 a year. They have a list of sponsors who give over $1 million a 
year to NPR. NPR, itself, has said it does not need our taxpayer 
funding. So this is a place that we can save some money.
  Now, to those who say it is a job-killing program, may I remind you, 
indeed, to develop local programming, I articulated 17 different 
positions that are attached to creating even one radio show. Unlike 
some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I fully believe there are talented 
people--talented writers and editors and programmers--all across this 
great Nation who would love to have a platform for the great ideas and 
the content they would like to create.
  I want to encourage all of my colleagues to take a step in the right 
direction in getting our fiscal house in order. The time has come for 
us to claw back this money. The time has come for us to send a message. 
We need to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pockets. I encourage a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 1076.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to not only support National 
Public Radio, but to speak against a bill that is a top example of 
thoughtless political pandering.
  The consequences of this legislation are much broader than simply 
defunding NPR, which provides thoughtful news broadcasts and well-known 
programs that are listened to by my constituents and over 27 million 
people nationwide. This bill will cause all locally owned public 
broadcasting stations across our country to lose key funding. Yes, this 
is a job killing bill brought forth by my Republican colleagues.
  The Republican leadership wants the public to think that they're 
working hard to cut spending and that this legislation will help 
taxpayers. Let's call them out on what they're really doing: putting 
jobs at risk so that they can appeal to right-wing voters. This is not 
just pettiness--it's pure hypocrisy and goes against everything that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle supposedly stand for. Does 
this bill save a great deal of money? No--it doesn't do a thing to 
reduce the deficit. Does this bill create jobs? Absolutely not--in 
fact, it does the opposite. And what happened to the Republican 
commitment to transparency? This bill has not been available for 72 
hours, breaking the Republican leadership's pledge to allow three days 
for the public to read legislation, and several germane amendments have 
been rejected.
  This bill sacrifices jobs and well-loved programs to score political 
points. It is a waste of this Congress's time and the legislators 
behind it should be ashamed of themselves. I am happy to work with my 
colleagues toward real deficit reduction and job creation strategies. 
Until that happens, I urge Members to vote no against this harmful and 
tactless legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 1076, a Republican bill to prohibit federal funding 
for National Public Radio.
  Congress has been in session this year for nearly three months, and 
what have the American people gotten?
  The House voted to repeal new patients' rights and benefits and to 
strengthen the rights of insurance companies.
  The House voted to cut funds for education and Pell Grants at a time 
when we need to build up, not tear down, our educational and economic 
competitiveness.
  The House voted to eliminate funds for Planned Parenthood, a highly 
regarded source for medical and health information and services for 
women.
  The House voted to take away the rights of workers to contest 
workplace abuses by their employers, weaken the reporting system for 
workplace safety violations, and lower the wages of construction 
workers on federal contracts.
  And now, today, the House is voting to kill the small amount of 
federal funding for National Public Radio, an important and unbiased 
source of news for tens of millions of Americans across the country.
  Not one bill so far to create jobs. Not one bill so far to invest in 
America. Not one bill that makes it clear America will be ready to 
compete in the global economy and win the race to produce the best 
college graduates in the world.
  Instead, the American people are being fed a steady diet of right-
wing ideological attacks

[[Page H1962]]

on our rights, on our values, and on middle class economic 
opportunities. American families are desperate for work, but they are 
getting nothing but a cold shoulder from the House of Representatives 
under this new leadership.
  The attack on NPR, just like the attack on Planned Parenthood, or on 
Head Start, and on workers' rights and safety, has nothing to do with 
reducing the deficit and the debt. It is nothing more than a partisan 
political agenda that is out of step with, and very dangerous to, the 
American people.
  The attack on NPR is outrageous and it should be rejected. The 
American people benefit greatly having this source of news that is free 
from the influence and demands of corporations and that consistently 
delivers top quality, in-depth, and breaking news on foreign affairs, 
science and technology, politics, the arts, and business.
  If this leadership is so concerned with the deficit, why hasn't it 
called up legislation to reduce tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer 
subsidies to major oil companies, companies with record profits quarter 
after quarter and no need for subsidies to carry out their work?
  Why hasn't this leadership called up legislation to reduce some of 
the billions of dollars in Pentagon waste documented year after year?
  And why was this leadership's first major action in the House a bill 
that would increase the deficit over the next ten years by more than 
$210 billion by repealing our historic health care law?
  Why? Because their rhetoric about deficit reduction is just a cover 
for a divisive political agenda that they hope will help them in the 
next election.
  I strongly support eliminating wasteful government spending, and I 
have a long and documented track record of deficit reduction. Whether 
it was my successful effort to increase student loan aid by reducing 
taxpayer support to private lenders, or passing the health care reform 
law, or through my early support for Pay-As-You-Go budgeting, I have 
always made this a priority.
  I know how hard it is to make tough choices about saving taxpayer 
money and being fiscally responsible.
  I know it is not hard for politicians to cut Head Start, but it's 
really hard on low-income mothers trying to educate their children. And 
I know it is not hard to cut the small amount of federal funding for 
NPR, but it is really hard on the millions of Americans who hunger for 
information from a wide variety of sources.
  I'll tell you what's hard to cut. It is really hard to cut land 
subsidies to multi-national mining companies, or royalty subsidies to 
oil companies, or water and price subsidies to major agricultural 
corporations. I know, because I have fought to make those cuts. And 
corporations fight back, hard.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again I rise in opposition to this bill that will 
not reduce our deficit but will reduce the level of information 
Americans have about really complex and important issues facing our 
country. And I rise in opposition to the past three months of partisan, 
ideological and political attacks on the basic rights, values and 
services that are so important to our country.
  And I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1076, 
which would prohibit federal funding of National Public Radio, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill. National Public 
Radio (NPR) provides an essential public service to our nation at a 
minimal cost to taxpayers. In Rhode Island, WRNI utilizes federal funds 
to provide local coverage of news events with local reporters. Without 
these funds, which account for nearly 8 percent of their annual budget, 
WNRI would lose its ability to bring local information to local 
communities, from the breaking news of the day to upcoming arts and 
cultural events.
  This bill will not reduce our deficit by one penny and it will not 
save or create any jobs. In fact, some have estimated that 9,000 jobs 
will be lost due to the elimination of federal funding for NPR. In a 
time of unprecedented global events, from natural disasters to citizen 
uprisings to dramatic economic upheaval, we must ensure that people 
have access to accurate information, not limit it even more. Once 
again, I urge my colleagues to put politics aside and oppose this bill 
to eliminate federal funding for NPR.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
strong opposition to H.R. 1076, a bill to Prohibit Federal funding of 
National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio 
content.
  NPR is a congressionally chartered non-profit organization that 
provides independent and non-partisan news and education to 
approximately 27 million Americans each week.
  This is a politically motivated bill that would hurt over 900 local 
radio stations across America that rely on NPR for fact based news 
content and the millions of Americans who listen to NPR for their daily 
news.
  NPR enjoys very strong support from the American public as nearly 70 
percent voiced their opposition to eliminating funding for public 
broadcasting according to recent polling.
  Constituents in my home of Dallas, Texas have contacted my office by 
the hundreds; making phone calls, sending emails and faxes to express 
how important NPR is to them.
  This bill will do nothing to create jobs or improve our economy. In 
fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that this 
bill would produce zero savings to the taxpayer, and do nothing to 
reduce the deficit.
  Families with low incomes, families living in rural areas, and 
minorities would be especially hurt by this legislation.
  Smaller radio stations in rural America rely on NPR more than large 
cities for radio content so they would be more greatly impaired by the 
bill's prohibition against using federal funding to local radio 
stations to pay for any content from any source, depriving them of 
hours of programming every day.
  At a time when our national news is driven more and more by 
commercial interests and obsession with viewing ratings, it's more 
important than ever for Americans to have an objective and unbiased 
source of news and national commentary that is based on facts and 
reporting.
  I also object to the process that the Republican Leadership has 
brought this bill under consideration today. The Republican Leadership 
have reversed themselves on their own promise to for every bill to 
undergo 72 hours of review.
  The American people have not heard a single hearing on this bill nor 
have they heard a single minute of testimony from any expert witness on 
the merits of this bill.
  Not only was this bill rushed to floor of the House without 
sufficient review and scrutiny by the public, but the Republican 
Leadership has brought this bill to the floor that prohibits any 
opportunity for any other Representative in this House to offer a 
single amendment to improve it.
  This is not the way to run the people's House. This legislation is 
pure political posturing and is distraction from what we should be 
doing today, which is working to create jobs and improve our economy.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me today in voting ``no'' 
on this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong disapproval of H.R. 
1076, which would prohibit federal funds to National Public Radio. The 
proposal today is a draconian attempt to kill public radio to millions 
of listeners across our nation who depend and cherish this essential 
service.
  The bill would significantly impede NPR's local station in Detroit, 
WDET 101.9 to continue its public service. Over 150,000 listeners in 
southeast Michigan, northwest Ohio and our neighbors in Canada would be 
deprived of such great shows such as The Diane Rehm Show, Jazz Profiles 
hosted by my friend Nancy Wilson and many other news and cultural 
programs. Furthermore, WDET and other NPR stations are one of the few 
radio providers of local news. The station carries many diverse 
perspectives that strengthen the social fabric for Detroiters.
  Media consolidation, for a variety of reasons, has resulted in a less 
progressive, less diverse, and a narrower set of viewpoints. For years, 
public radio has successfully been able to provide Americans with 
cutting edge, sophisticated, and culturally relevant news that 
otherwise would not be able to enjoy this much needed public service.
  Today's bill jeopardizes public radio's ability to operate at an 
optimal level, and could result in a dramatic decrease in Americans' 
access to this vital medium. It is a shame that our nation's children 
and young people may not have the ability to listen to classical music, 
opera, and other intellectually stimulating broadcast that are vitally 
important to the intellectual and cultural of our future Americans. In 
short, today's vote is a needless attack on one of America's cherished 
institutions--public radio. I urge my colleagues to look at other ways 
to balance our Nation's budget that do not include cuts to education 
and culture.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, here the Republicans go again. I guess 
no one in this country, as they envision, it should ever have a 
different point of view than theirs. Liberty cannot be just an empty 
word. It certainly is not to us Democrats. We opposed the elimination 
of National Public Radio last year and I oppose it today.
  Thinking and discerning people like to get their information from 
different sources and different points of view and then make their own 
decisions. That is what NPR provides.
  The American people are smart and do not want to be spoon fed 
propaganda and brainwashed by any one ideology or political party.
  And they support Public Broadcasting--Republicans, Democrats and 
Independents alike. When asked, more than two-thirds oppose the 
elimination of federal funding for public broadcasting as this bill 
would do.
  This bill has nothing to do with reducing the deficit. It is an 
ideological battle--all about

[[Page H1963]]

never supporting and always wanting to get rid of public radio and 
public TV. Republicans are showing again that they are out of touch 
with the American people.
  This attempt to shut down free radio is misguided and based on 
deliberately distorted information.
  Taking funding away from national Public Radio would hurt local 
stations, small stations--many even in Republican districts--which 
depend on NPR programming to survive so that they can carry local news, 
events and programming and even provide the opportunity for any of us 
to speak to the public.
  Colleagues, let's vote for Democracy. Vote ``no'' on this bill
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, had I been able to vote on H.R. 1076, 
legislation that would decimate public radio in America, I would have 
voted ``no.''
  National Public Radio (NPR) is one of America's most vital and 
trusted news sources, utilized by 27 million Americans each week. 
Taking away federal assistance for public radio would hurt 900 public 
radio stations, especially smaller stations in rural America that lack 
a sizable donor base.
  Access to popular and informative news programming, including All 
Things Considered, Morning Edition, Forum, On Point, and This American 
Life, would be jeopardized in smaller markets. Broadly available access 
to informative and objective news in America would be compromised.
  My office has received many calls and letters from residents 
throughout the 10th Congressional District, urging Congress to preserve 
NPR's budget. My constituents understand that public broadcasting is a 
critical and cost-effective American investment, and I stand with them.
  H.R. 1076 harms our economy and American competitiveness. The 
Congressional Budget Office has determined that this legislation will 
have zero impact on the budget and the deficit, but it will likely 
destroy 9,000 jobs. Our support of public broadcasting is a tremendous 
bargain for the American people. At a time of increasing competition in 
the global economy, America's future prosperity depends on a 
knowledgeable workforce, and our robust democracy depends on a well-
informed citizenry.
  H.R. 1076 takes away vital information from the American people, and 
that is why I am deeply opposed to this pointless and destructive bill.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1076, 
which prohibits federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and 
radio content acquisition.
  According to a preliminary estimate from Congressional Budget Office, 
this bill will produce no savings for the taxpayers and will not reduce 
the deficit. This is an ideologically driven piece of legislation that 
does nothing to reduce our deficit.
  Each week, 27.2 million Americans nationwide turn to NPR to find the 
kind of news, music programs, and interesting entertainment they can't 
get elsewhere. NPR offers quality in-depth reporting, insightful 
commentary, and an on-air forum that allows a wide range of voices to 
be heard. With political rhetoric and ideological name-calling filling 
cable news programs, NPR's news coverage has become an essential source 
for people looking for the facts. This is why 8 out of 10 voters oppose 
cutting federal funding for public broadcasting.
  In my district, Hawaii Public Radio (HPR) engages its island 
listeners through countless events statewide. These include the Hawaii 
Book and Musical Festival as well as a series of pre-performance 
lectures at the Hawaii Opera Theatre. HPR also embraces Native Hawaiian 
culture with its daily Hawaiian language newsbreak and the ``Hawaiian 
Word of the Day'' feature.
  With the program Aloha Shorts, HPR promotes local poets and actors. 
HPR has even given our children an opportunity to be heard by a 
national audience having young musicians featured in the sold out From 
the Top performances, which received national broadcast. With over 400 
volunteers and audiences on all islands, HPR shares the diversity of 
Hawaii with communities across the country.
  Hawaii Public Radio is not just a radio station--it's an essential 
part of our island community and deserves federal support.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of NPR in people's 
daily lives and vote against this bill.
  Ms. McCOLLUM.  The legislation on the floor today, a bill to defund 
National Public Radio, is another example of a Republican-Tea Party 
agenda which kills jobs and imposes an extremist right-wing ideological 
agenda on the American people. This bill and debate is about 
titillating right wing passions and silencing public broadcasting--
nothing more. It is time for listeners of public radio, viewers of 
public television, and all citizens who value non-commercial 
broadcasting to make their voices heard or some valuable radio stations 
and important programming will disappear.
  In my state, Minnesota Public Radio is a treasured source of 
information and an important employer. The effects of this legislation 
would hurt National Public Radio, hurt Minnesota Public Radio, and 
Minnesotans who value this critical public media resource. Currently, 
public broadcasting in Minnesota receives over $4.2 million in federal 
grants, and that funding is at risk as a result of this bill.
  This ill-conceived and mean-spirited attack on an important non-
profit employer would mean hundreds of lost jobs in Minnesota and the 
silencing of important public broadcasting content currently heard by 
tens of millions of Americans every week. Again, this is not surprising 
coming from a Republican-Tea Party majority that has already passed 
legislation that would eliminate nearly a million American jobs.
  While Democrats are fighting to strengthen the economy and create 
jobs, the Republican-Tea Party is pursuing an agenda that kills jobs, 
busts unions, and rewards big corporations with taxpayer handouts. This 
extreme agenda is an affront to the American people and seriously 
diminishes the ability for bipartisan solutions to our nation's most 
serious challenges.
  The bill is on the floor today in large part because of the exploits 
of a Republican operative who doubles as a muckraking dirty trickster. 
This faux-journalist lied to a National Public Radio executive to 
secure a meeting and then pieced together a deceptively-edited video of 
a secretly taped meeting. One media expert called the media sabotage of 
NPR by James O'Keefe, ``. . . unethical. It's pretty scummy.''
  Mr. James O'Keefe, the Republican operative who deceived NPR, is most 
famous for being arrested and convicted of attempting to infiltrate the 
office of a Democratic U.S. Senator while impersonating a telephone 
repairman in an attempt to eavesdrop on calls between constituents and 
congressional staff. Now Mr. O'Keefe's criminal and unethical behavior 
is being used by the Republican-Tea Party majority in the U.S. House to 
pass a law to defund NPR.
  I guess today's legislation could be called an example of yellow 
policy-making based upon yellow journalism--except for the fact that 
any reference to journalism even in its most pejorative form in 
association with Mr. O'Keefe is a discredit to journalism.
  Mr. O'Keefe is in better company with Republicans such as former 
President Richard Nixon and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in 
their efforts to embrace criminal behavior in the pursuit of political 
advantage.
  The millions and millions of Americans who seek unbiased news, 
information, educational, and cultural programming should not be 
surprised that the Republican-Tea Party Congress and their corporate 
sponsors want to eliminate funding for National Public Radio. This 
legislation is not about deficit reduction because this bill fails to 
reduce the federal budget deficit by even $1 according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, but it is about advancing a right-wing 
political agenda at NPR's expense.
  This week, the Republican-Tea Party held an emergency meeting about 
so-called urgently needed legislation.
  What was the emergency? Were we finally going to consider a jobs 
bill? No.
  The ``emergency'' declared was to prohibit federal funding to go to 
NPR.
  This bill will prevent all public radio stations from using federal 
funds to purchase any programming from any source. The Republican-Tea 
Party majority wants to take control away from our local stations, like 
Minnesota Public Radio. It means that local stations, across the 
country, will not be able to use these funds to get programming from 
two of the largest public radio organizations in the country--American 
Public Media and Public Radio International--both located in Minnesota. 
That means stations could not use the funds to purchase programs like 
the beloved ``A Prairie Home Companion'' and ``This American Life''.
  Why have the Republicans brought this bill to the floor without as 
much as a single minute of consideration in a hearing or in 
committee?
  This NPR ``emergency'' is not to help struggling families and debate 
a badly-needed jobs bill right before we leave on a week-long 
recess.
  It is to consider legislation that will weaken our community. That 
will cost jobs in Minnesota. And all the Republican-Tea Partiers will 
vote for it based on the antics of a Republican operative who makes a 
living from lying.
  I would urge Members of the U.S. House and all Americans who value 
journalistic integrity and valuable public media outlets, like 
Minnesota Public Radio, to fight against a very bad bill and the harm 
it would cause to our communities.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose 
H.R. 1076, the bill to stop federal funding for National Public Radio 
(NPR). The bill bars making federal funds available for: NPR; payments 
of dues to NPR; and the acquisition of any radio programming by or for 
the use of a public radio station.

[[Page H1964]]

  Earlier this week the Republican led House passed a three week CR 
that contained $50 million in cuts for NPR's parent organization, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The new House majority is looking 
to cut all federal funding of public radio and television stations.
  Mr. Speaker, without federal funding, many public radio and TV 
stations, especially in rural and small communities would go off air. 
Prohibiting local stations from using federal funds to acquire or 
produce local/national programming will interfere with the operating 
independence fundamental to the American's public radio system.
  Barring public radio stations from using federal funds to acquire 
public radio programming would be a huge disruption to the economic 
model used by public radio stations to serve audiences and to develop 
local programming, including local/regional news.
  If this measure were to pass, New York Public Radio's own station 
WNYC's national morning news program, The Takeaway, with an audience of 
younger and more diverse listeners, will be in serious jeopardy. New 
York Public Radio produces more than 150 original hours of programming 
each week, including a broad range of daily news, talk and cultural and 
classical music programming. New York Public Radio has two million 
weekly listeners in NYC metropolitan region and 3 million listeners 
across the country.
  After 11 weeks with no jobs legislation, the Republican Majority is 
bringing up this bill that does not create jobs or reduce the deficit. 
I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, while the media may focus on NPR, the federal 
dollars being targeted by this awful bill now go directly to local 
public radio stations, not to NPR.
  The federal dollars received make up a small percentage of the budget 
for larger stations, but these dollars represent a significant 
percentage of budgets for local public radio stations, like KAZU and 
KUSP in my district. It's important to note that stations are then able 
to leverage those federal grants into millions of dollars in donations 
from listeners, corporate supporters and foundations. That's the 
definition of a good federal investment.
  Those federal grants enable our local public radio stations to do in-
depth stories on local issues important to our region--our world famous 
tourism events like the AT&T Pebble Beach golf tournament, the Monterey 
Jazz and Pops festivals, our multi-billion dollar agriculture industry 
or the budget crisis in California.
  Unlike commercial media, local public radio employees have only one 
concern--to serve their audience. Public broadcasting gives voices to 
the smallest and most diverse communities in our country that are 
overlooked by commercial broadcast radio. These are the voices that 
will be lost if H.R. 1076 is enacted.
  H.R. 1076 is an ideological attack on public broadcasting 
masquerading as a fiscal issue.
  Without so much as a single hearing on a subject that affects 34 
million Americans weekly who depend on public broadcasting for their 
commercial-free news and more, this legislation dismantles fifty years 
of quality public broadcasting and thousands of jobs because of a 
political bias.
  I hope my colleagues will consider the impact that any cuts or 
elimination of the ability to buy NPR programming would have on 
institutions in your district.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues 
to vote to against H.R. 1076 which would prohibit federal funding for 
NPR and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content.
  Today's Republican attempts to defund NPR will affect stations all 
across the country. In my district alone, KTSU and KPFT will have to 
cope with the aftermath of the Republican proposal. These two stations 
serve predominately poor, minority populations in my district, and the 
House Republicans are attempting to eliminate their opportunity to 
provide National Public Radio to their listeners. If this bill were to 
become law, radio stations in my district would no longer qualify to 
receive over $743,000 in Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants, 
and prohibiting the use of these funds to purchase popular NPR 
programming will make it difficult for stations to attract local 
listeners and raise funds for the production of local content and 
station operations. Hundreds of stations rely on public broadcasting 
funding as a major source of funding, especially rural and minority 
stations.
  Some people in my district exclusively listen to these stations. 
These two stations in Houston and hundreds across the country do not 
have the money to compete with big corporate stations, and they cannot 
compete with conservative talk shows because they do not spew out 
biased, partisan, uncomplimentary, critical messages. They are just 
reporting the news and bringing it from all over the world.
  Further, I think it is shameless that once again the Republicans have 
violated their so called promises of transparent government by refusing 
to allow this bill to go through normal committee processes. There have 
been no hearings or expert testimony for Members to review. There has 
only been politically charged rhetoric and lies about the impact of 
public radio.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot believe we are focusing on 
this right now. At a time when millions are out of work, people are 
looking for jobs, and trying to get back on their feet, why is this 
body focused on NPR, of all things? Is this really the best we can do?
  For a minute, let's put aside the fact that national public radio is 
a part of our tradition as a country and provides quality programming 
to millions of listeners in urban, suburban and rural America. Let's 
put aside for a minute that funding for NPR is but a drop in the bucket 
compared to the giveaways and budget busting tax breaks Republicans 
support for Big Oil companies.
  Here we are, eleven weeks into a new Congress--still putting politics 
over policy. Make no mistake about it, cuts to NPR will not solve our 
budget crisis and it will not create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better. This body should be 
focusing on jobs. Plain and simple. Instead we are focused on defunding 
NPR. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to 
HR 1076, a bill to eliminate federal funding for NPR and prohibit local 
public radio stations from using federal funds to acquire programming 
content.
  Mr. Speaker, National Public Radio provides 27 million Americans with 
access to high-quality, non-commercial programming every week. In many 
cases, NPR's network of 900 local public radio stations is the only way 
Americans can access this kind of news and information. For that 
reason, public opinion polls routinely show large majorities of 
American in support of federal funding for NPR--and that breadth of 
support is consistently strong across the political spectrum.
  So what are we doing here today? Creating jobs? Exactly the opposite. 
Enactment of this bill would endanger 9000 jobs at local public radio 
stations in communities across the country. Reducing the deficit? 
Hardly. CBO says this bill produces no savings. Honoring the majority's 
commitment to 72 hours notice and transparent governance? Mr. Speaker, 
this bill was introduced on Tuesday and is now being rushed to the 
floor 48 hours later without a single hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the people's business, and it is no way to 
run this House. It won't create a single job. It doesn't reduce the 
deficit. The American people haven't asked for it, and they don't want 
it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker I rise today to express the voices of the 
hundreds of people flooding my offices with calls and emails to plead 
for us to do the right thing and vote down this misguided legislation.
  H.R. 1076 would cripple the public radio system in this country that 
currently provides vital news and information to over 27 million 
Americans each week.
  I would first like to set the record straight--this bill will not 
save a single taxpayer dollar. Not one. And it will not reduce our 
federal deficit by one dime. Not one.
  My colleague from Colorado and his leadership have tried to portray 
this bill as a savings to taxpayers--and with all due respect, that is 
simply untrue.
  This bill is no more than a punitive measure reflecting an extreme 
agenda.
  It would devastate 900 public radio stations across the country 
unfairly targeting smaller stations in rural and regional areas where 
there are fewer news outlets and where broadband is insufficient.
  The bill threatens almost 9,000 jobs in the broadcasting community 
and, frankly is an unwarranted attack on the content of public radio.
  And the ultimate agenda of my Republican colleagues is laid bare when 
one considers that the Leadership rushed this bill through, ignoring 
promises to take legislation through regular order, and in short, 
breaking all their own professed rules to get this legislation to the 
Floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we've now been in session for 11 weeks, and the 
Republican leadership has not yet introduced a single bill to create 
jobs.
  They've instead focused on advancing an extreme agenda that does 
nothing to get Americans back to work.
  And today, rather than coming together to create jobs for the 
American people and address the fiscal situation squarely before us, we 
are spending our time debating and voting on a bill that is nothing 
more than social commentary in action to impugn one of our nation's 
most vital news sources.
  When we began our session, we all proudly read from the Constitution, 
and in that process were reminded of our core values as a nation and a 
government.
  One of those values is reflected in the First Amendment which 
supports the ability of Americans to access news and information 
through a free press.
  Sadly Mr. Speaker, this bill would ultimately limit vital news 
coverage millions of Americans so desperately need.

[[Page H1965]]

  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this damaging and 
unwarranted bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, on March 17, 2011, the House 
will consider H.R. 1076, to prohibit Federal funding of National Public 
Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content. 
Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment that will prevent me from 
taking this vote. However, I feel strongly about this issue and I 
wanted to make those feelings known.
  According to people that I have met with at the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting (CPB), a public radio or broadcasting station is 
considered critically dependent on federal funding if thirty percent or 
more of its funding comes from federal funding. There are twenty-six 
National Public Radio (NPR) stations in Alaska and nearly half of them 
are critically dependent on federal funding. These stations serve 
cities, like KUAC in Fairbanks and KSKA in Anchorage. They serve salmon 
runs, like KDLL in Kenai and KDLG in Dillingham. The even serve places 
that are seemingly at the end the world, like KHUB on St. Paul Island 
and KBRW in Barrow. In many cases, these radio stations are the ONLY 
broadcast signal that many Alaskans get. To deny them access to basic 
news, early childhood education programming, and even emergency alerts, 
merely to serve a political agenda, is irresponsible.
  I must, first and foremost, consider what is best for Alaska. When 11 
NPR stations in Alaska would have to close their doors to the public if 
this bill becomes law, I must stand up for all Alaskans. As Alaska's 
lone voice in the House of Representatives for the last four decades, I 
am proud to support NPR.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of swift U.S. 
troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. This decade-long war is costing our 
country tens of hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. 
In 2010 alone, nearly 500 brave American men and women lost their 
lives, which is 63% more than the 2009 death toll. And as I speak, our 
government, which has vowed to reduce the deficit, has sent millions 
more overseas for a war with no foreseeable end. From 2008 to 2011, 
overall government spending has increased by 9%, while funding for the 
war in Afghanistan has increased by a startling 25%. As many of my 
colleagues demand $100 billion budget cuts, they need look no further 
than our reckless war spending. For the good of our troops and the 
health of our economy, this war must end.
  And this viewpoint is shared across the nation. According to a recent 
Washington Post poll, nearly two-thirds of the American people support 
an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, our job in this 
chamber is to represent our constituents, and they have spoken loud and 
clear. The American people are fed up with a war that has done little 
to improve our national security or bolster our international standing. 
Furthermore, after nearly ten years of fighting, it is crystal clear 
that the problem in Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means 
alone. Stabilization and reconstruction, governance, and peace-building 
activities can help to stabilize states, promote rule of law, and bring 
enduring peace at a sliver of the cost we pay for troops on the ground.
  Make no mistake about it: I firmly support our men and women in 
uniform. For this reason, we must bring them home from a battlefront 
with no real hope of military victory. I thank my colleague, Mr. 
Kucinich from Ohio, for re-introducing this Resolution. I was proud to 
cosponsor it in the last Congress, and I will firmly offer my support 
today in hopes that we can finally end this war.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
1076, a bill to prohibit federal funding of National Public Radio and 
the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. Our constituents 
sent us to Congress to address the economy and jobs, and to date we've 
only considered legislation to cut jobs and cut investment in our local 
communities. CBO projects this bill will have $0 impact on the deficit, 
and this bill represents nothing more than an attack on news and 
programming that is valuable to 34 million Americans, and a further 
attack on American jobs.
  National Public Radio programming provides a breath of ``Fresh Air'' 
in a toxic media environment, and this bill would threaten the ability 
of Iowa Public Radio in my home state to continue to provide access to 
that content. By prohibiting funding use on national programming, Iowa 
Public Radio expects to see a reduction in corporate underwriting and 
other fundraising, fundamentally impacting their ability to operate.
  I'm proud to be a long time listener of Iowa Public Radio. This Iowa 
treasure provides access to valuable national content like Morning 
Edition, All Things Considered, Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk, 
and local programming like The Exchange covering current events and 
news from across the political spectrum, and programs that highlight 
the arts in Iowa communities like Orchestra Iowa in Cedar Falls. This 
bill would jeopardize this valuable source of non-partisan news and 
entertainment to fulfill a political vendetta.
  ``All Things considered,'' Mr. Speaker, we need to address the 
deficit, but this bill does nothing to solve our problems. The CBO 
projects this bill will save the taxpayers nothing, and threatens 9000 
jobs across the country. I know National Public Radio is a constant 
companion in my home, just as it is across the nation, and I have heard 
loud and clear from my constituents, do not cut funding for NPR.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 174, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. SUTTON. I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Sutton moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1076, to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 2, after line 24, insert the following:
       (3) Amber alerts.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, nothing in this Act shall limit the eligibility of 
     an organization described in subsection (a)(1) or an entity 
     that makes a payment described in subsection (a)(2) to 
     receive Federal funds to broadcast or otherwise disseminate 
     alerts issued by the AMBER Alert communications network 
     regarding abducted children.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, there are many times when 
we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we have heard 
some heated debate on the bill before us; but in this moment, Mr. 
Speaker, my amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and to 
do something extraordinarily important, and that is to protect our 
children.
  I happen to oppose the underlying bill, but regardless of how one 
feels about the underlying legislation, this amendment is something 
upon which we can all agree. Nothing is more precious, more valuable 
than our children, and when a child goes missing in a community, no one 
asks whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat. We simply ask: 
How can we help find the child and return him safely home? When the 
unthinkable happens, we all seek in common purpose to do all that we 
can to ensure a successful outcome, and it is in pursuit of that 
successful outcome that this amendment is offered today.
  This amendment will ensure that, when a child goes missing, every 
resource available to find that child and to return him or her to 
safety will be utilized, including NPR's satellite. We all know that, 
when a child is abducted, a rapid and coordinated response can make a 
life-and-death difference. This amendment will make sure that we do not 
undermine the AMBER Alert System that has been effectively used to 
recover missing children.
  The AMBER Alert System was created after Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old 
girl from Arlington, Texas, was abducted while riding her bicycle and 
then was brutally murdered in 1996. Her kidnapping and murder still 
remain unsolved. Amber's tragic story led to a partnership between 
broadcasters and police to develop an early warning system to help find 
abducted children. Named in Amber's memory, it stands for ``America's 
Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response.'' The AMBER Alert program 
began as a local effort in Texas, and it has since grown into a 
successful national program, saving hundreds of lives of children.
  Today, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands have AMBER Alert plans. The AMBER Alert program 
instantly galvanizes the entire community to assist in the search for 
and in the safe recovery of an abducted child. Since its inception, the 
AMBER Alert has helped to find and successfully recover 538 children 
nationwide.

[[Page H1966]]

  Mr. Speaker, we go to great lengths to protect our children from 
sexual predators and abductors--and rightfully so. We talk to them 
about keeping themselves safe. We teach them how to recognize and how 
to avoid dangerous situations, and we talk to them about making smart 
decisions. Today, we have the chance to make a decision to ensure that, 
regardless of how we feel about the underlying bill, we will not 
undermine the effectiveness of our AMBER Alert network system.
  NPR is designated as a disseminator of AMBER Alerts via arrangements 
with the Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children. The deployment of next-generation emergency alert 
systems is in progress, and NPR is positioned to play a vital, 
necessary role with its satellite-based capabilities.
  Recklessly eliminating funding critical to the effective functioning 
of the AMBER Alert System would be a tragic mistake. Children of every 
age, gender and race are vulnerable to child abduction, and when it 
happens, time is the enemy. Communities must mobilize quickly.
  The widespread use of the AMBER Alert network is the Nation's most 
powerful tool for bringing abducted children home. AMBER Alerts also 
serve as deterrents to those who would prey upon our children. AMBER 
Alert cases demonstrate that some perpetrators release the abducted 
children after hearing the AMBER Alerts on the radio or seeing them on 
television.
  In my hometown of Copley, Ohio, a 1-year-old little girl was taken by 
her father after a domestic fight grew violent. The father, known to 
have a drug problem, took the young girl from her home and drove 
erratically off with her in a car. An AMBER Alert was issued, and 
because of the continued press coverage, the man made the decision to 
return his daughter. Thankfully, she was brought to safety.
  Let's be clear. The passage of this amendment will not prevent the 
passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be 
incorporated into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted 
upon. So, though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the 
opportunity to speak with one voice to protect our children. It is up 
to us. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

                              {time}  1450

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition 
to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that this Nation's 
children, our children and our grandchildren are an incredibly 
important part of our lives and protecting those children, protecting 
their future.
  We all agree that it is important that we put this Nation on a firm 
fiscal footing. Now, while we all heartily support the AMBER Alert 
program, we also know there is nothing in the H.R. 1076 that would 
prohibit the AMBER Alert program. What we also know is that this is a 
procedural move by the minority to try to derail the funding to NPR.
  As I said, as we talked about the bill, it is imperative that we be 
good stewards of the taxpayers' money, that we get this fiscal house in 
order. It is time to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pocket. The 
underlying bill does that.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. I encourage an 
``aye'' vote on H.R. 1076.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 1076 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 1076, if ordered; and 
adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 28.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 235, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               YEAS--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman

[[Page H1967]]


     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cohen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Jordan
     Labrador
     Moore
     Nadler
     Wasserman Schultz
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1515

  Messrs. DesJARLAIS and JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 192, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               AYES--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cohen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Hinojosa
     Jordan
     Labrador
     Nadler
     Pence
     Wasserman Schultz
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1524

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________