[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13934-13935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        SAVE PUBLIC BROADCASTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Speaker, it was with alarm and a great sense of 
shock that I learned of the proposal to cut public broadcasting. Public 
broadcasting provides unbiased, in-depth coverage of public policy 
issues, exposure to the arts and culture, and quality family-friendly 
educational program.
  Cutting funding for public broadcasting would damage the fabric of 
public discourse and citizen oversight, the very basis of 
representative government. By encouraging and informing public debate, 
public broadcasting makes a lasting contribution to community across 
the country and has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
  In Kentucky, Governors from both parties have worked with Kentucky 
Educational Television to create the largest PBS member network in 
America, serving 640,000 Kentuckians each week. The proposed cut that 
we debated today would have had a crippling impact on the ability of 
KET and other public broadcasters to inform the public and enrich the 
curriculum taught to school children in the district of every single 
Member of this body.
  The question on everyone's minds was why?
  As educators and parents across our Nation contend with inadequate 
resources for public schools, why drastically scale back support for 
programming that enhances basic education and provides many students, 
especially those in rural schools, with their only exposure to the 
arts, music and the humanities? As policymakers work to improve early 
childhood education, why eliminate support for good programs like 
Sesame Street and Clifford the Big Red Dog which improve reading and 
literacy skills for millions of children?
  As parents express concern about indecent content in the shows that 
their children watch, why turn our back on the only station I can allow 
my three children, Lucie, Albert and Branham, to watch without 
supervision?
  And as the public seeks refuge from an increasingly disappointing, 
and, in some cases, outright partisan media,

[[Page 13935]]

why rescind support for highly respected objective news programs like 
the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Frontline?
  Why cripple excellent radio stations like WUKY and WEKU in my 
district, jeopardizing shows like Morning Edition and All Things 
Considered?
  Why indeed? I cannot answer such questions. The very notion of 
turning away from the future of public broadcasting is preposterous. I 
am fearful this is an administration effort to either censor public 
broadcasters or intimidate them into favorably reporting on the current 
administration. I sincerely hope not. Objectivity and facts know 
nothing of partisan politics.
  The opponents of public broadcasting should take note, we will never 
stop fighting to preserve public broadcasting's independence. Public 
broadcasting is a true civic treasury, a shining example of what good 
government policy can do to improve our quality of life and strengthen 
the American Republic by engaging citizens in public affairs.
  As Thomas Jefferson once said, Whenever people are well informed, 
they can be trusted with their own government.
  Maintaining our commitment to public broadcasting will help keep the 
very people who elect us well informed, and in doing so, help to 
promote the integrity and proper functioning of this very body itself.
  I applaud the Members of this body who rose to the defense of public 
broadcasting earlier today by voting to restore funding to a cherished 
American institution.

                          ____________________