Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 23, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for producing a solid bill under very challenging circumstances; but rather than talking about the entirety of the bill, I want to address myself to one particular process.

During the amendment process, there will be an amendment offered to add more funding to public broadcasting. I will oppose that amendment.

We should recognize two things: first, Big Bird and his friends can fly on their own; and, second, Americans have access to a wide variety and multitude of educational, cultural, and children's programming that are provided by a vast variety of diverse networks that we have today.

Public broadcasting has developed a major base of private donors, corporate donors and licensing fees and royalties from programs. Because of this, Federal funding is only 15 percent, $1 in $7, of the budget for public broadcasting; and this bill only reduces a fraction of that 15 percent, about a 4 percent overall reduction for public broadcasting's budget. This will not jeopardize any program or any station, because they have ample resources already on hand to make up that difference.

Public broadcasters have accumulated major financial resources, hundreds of millions of dollars that they have invested in stocks, bonds and other securities, in addition to owning their broadcast facilities. In other words, Big Bird and his friends can fly on their own. But there is another factor.

Public broadcasting is not the only place to find education, cultural, historical documentaries and children's programs. We have achieved variety and diversity, thanks to networks that do not ask for Federal money. C-SPAN carries the proceedings of Congress to the world without a Federal subsidy. We have the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, Nickelodeon, the Arts and Entertainment Network, Lifetime TV, Family Channel, Food Network, Science Channel, and so forth.

We do not need a nationwide subsidy either to reach a few targeted households. I heard somebody say, well, we need public broadcasting to provide TV for the poor. Let us understand what we call poverty in the U.S.A. is not like poverty in Bangladesh, the Sudan, Haiti or anyplace else. In the United States, not only does almost every poor household have a TV, but two-thirds of them have cable television with full access to a vast diversity of programs.

It is getting harder and harder to distinguish public TV from the rest of broadcasting because other broadcasters, a great many, carry the same type of programs today, and each year public broadcasting looks more and more like other networks.

Public radio has even moved away from classical music and more toward talk radio that is common to the profit sector. Much of public TV has the same movies and old TV shows that we see on other networks, even as those other networks are adding more documentaries and more special programs.

Madam Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has said, we have higher priorities than subsidizing one segment of America's broadcasters. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has made tough decisions about those priorities, and we should support his decisions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov