[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2620-H2621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESCISSIONS PACKAGE: CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
(Ms. Bonamici of Oregon was recognized to address the House for 5
minutes.)
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the House GOP's
rescission request that would take back $9.4 billion in Federal funding
Congress appropriated for foreign aid, the State Department, and public
media.
We know how devastating the loss of this funding would be for people
around the globe. Ending these investments will undoubtedly cost lives
and diminish our standing in the world.
Taking back the almost $1.1 billion in funding that Congress
appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is ludicrous.
The Trump administration says they are cutting public broadcasting
because it is partisan and biased.
What is the basis for that claim?
Maybe it is because the shows on PBS, like the very popular ``Daniel
Tiger's Neighborhood,'' teach children the importance of kindness,
respect, empathy, and caring for others. These are all traits that are
absent from this current administration.
The only partisan bias is from this administration itself as they
seek to weaponize public broadcasting, which offers many benefits to
everyone, including: alerting the public and sharing information about
emergencies in times of crisis; teaching children reading and social
and emotional development skills; and reaching areas that lack reliable
and affordable access to broadband internet, particularly in rural
areas.
The loss of PBS KIDS in particular would deprive millions of children
and families of formative learning experiences from programs that are
designed specifically for kids, not just ``Daniel Tiger's
Neighborhood,'' but also ``Arthur,'' ``Sid the Science Kid,'' and much
more.
The Trump administration claims to be pro-family, but this request to
rescind the funding is yet another antifamily example from this
administration.
Further, the $1.1 billion cost for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting represents 0.0001 percent of the entire Federal budget.
PBS reaches every congressional district across the country and costs a
mere $1.60 per person each year.
What else provides so much value for less than $2 per person?
The Trump administration is cutting pennies of valuable programming
out of spite. Most Americans trust PBS because it is publicly funded.
Just like public broadcasting should be objective, so should the
funding decisions about it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rescission package.
{time} 1015
IRA Clean Energy Incentives Defense
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, in their big, ugly bill, Republicans are
once again trying to rip away clean energy tax credits, one of the most
effective job-creating tools we ever had.
Thousands of workers, many in rural and coastal counties in my home
State of Oregon, but also across the country, will lose the jobs they
just started. Jobs in solar, wind, battery storage, clean
manufacturing, those are jobs with good wages and benefits that are
supporting their families.
Ripping away these credits means that instead of finishing
construction on clean power plants, Republicans will abandon billions
in sunk costs, leave half-built equipment, and electricity bills will
go up. Utility companies are expecting major rate hikes if these
credits vanish because, without them,
[[Page H2621]]
they will be forced to rely on more expensive, unstable, and dirty
fossil fuels.
Local economies will be devastated by shuttered worksites, canceled
investments, and families will be uprooted.
Imagine if we could generate our own power right here in America with
the safest, most advanced technologies in the world. Now consider that
we can deploy cheap, clean energy, but the Republicans won't let us.
Are they afraid of offending big oil companies?
These credits are working. They sparked more than $300 billion in
private sector investment. They have launched a manufacturing comeback
in communities that have waited decades for it.
Repealing them, that would be economic self-sabotage. Here is the
thing: Republicans are pushing this repeal, and they are also backing
Donald Trump's declaration of a so-called energy emergency. If we are
in an energy emergency, why would we gut the industries that are
expanding supplies, cutting costs, and creating stability? We wouldn't.
We don't solve a so-called emergency by kneecapping every solution
except oil.
It is not about ideology. Many, if not most, of these projects that
will lose out are in parts of the country represented by my Republican
colleagues. It is about whether we keep building the future or tear it
down before it has had a chance.
We should be competing with China. We should be making energy
cheaper, not more expensive. We should be backing the American workers
who are finally getting the chance to accelerate our energy leadership.
Instead, the Republicans' big, ugly bill says to pack it up and go
home.
I won't stand for that, and neither should anyone who claims to care
about jobs, economic growth, or energy security.
____________________