To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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).

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill yesterday was brought to the Rules Committee as an emergency meeting. Now, what would be an emergency in the United States? The cost of the war? The damage of the war? Unemployment figures? The deficit? Home foreclosure? The tragedy in Japan? A no-fly zone over Libya?

No. The emergency is that they want to destroy National Public Radio.

This is the latest in a long string of misplaced priorities by the Republican Party. It does nothing to fix the long-term fiscal condition. It doesn't create a single job. In fact, it will lose some. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the legislation does absolutely zero to reduce the deficit.

When so many Americans want our representatives to create jobs to responsibly reduce the deficit and to bring our sons and daughters home from the battlefields overseas, why are we wasting valuable floor time on an ideological battle that does nothing to achieve any of those goals?

Because the bill is a political stunt, it is being rushed through Congress under draconian rules. Violating their own promises of transparency, the Republican majority held no hearings, no committee action of any kind, listened to no expert testimony, and provided no chance for the American people to weigh in. Just by saying it is an emergency, apparently, in many minds, it does become one. By not providing a true 72 hours and because the bill, itself, omitted the fact that the bill would lay over to allow all Members to review the legislation, they violated the spirit of the transparency they promised the American people just 5 months ago.

My colleagues on the other side know that they must pass this legislation quickly before the American people, at the rate of 69 percent, are allowed to speak and tell their representatives something they don't want to hear, for the American people, unlike the far right- wing, know that NPR is not an ideological news outlet and that NPR radio bases its reporting on fact, which is really an anomaly today in the United States.

NPR doesn't try to blur the line between opinion, fact, and political agenda. Instead, it takes the time and spends the money to do in-depth reporting across the country and around the globe and to go where no other news organization will go. Unlike commercial news outlets that are driven by the need to garner ratings and sell commercial advertising, National Public Radio concerns itself, first and foremost, with informing the Nation on the complex issues that face our country.

In stark contrast to the bare bones and often sensationalist reporting found elsewhere, National Public Radio operates 17 foreign bureaus. In fact, it is one of the few news outlets to maintain a full- time bureau in Afghanistan, reporting from the front lines of a largely forgotten war. It is also in the process of opening a bureau in Turkey in order to report firsthand on the democratic uprisings throughout the Middle East.

In the United States, it has correspondents spread out from Texas to Oregon, telling the stories not covered by the cable news pundits that we see on TV every day. In rural America in particular, NPR can often be the only, best source of news. Defunding NPR will cut off this valuable source of news from the southern tier of western New York to the plains of the upper Midwest, and will put rural communities at a major disadvantage in the information age.

It is because of their valuable and unique reporting that Americans are increasingly turning to NPR in order to learn about our ever- changing world. In fact, despite the challenges facing the news media, a new report by the Pew Foundation has shown that NPR is strong and is growing more popular every day. According to the report, NPR's audience has grown to 27.2 million weekly listeners. This is a 58 percent increase since the year 2000. In addition, the Web site is a premier online news destination, garnering 15.7 million visitors a month, which is an increase of more than 5 million people over the course of a single year--and are those people really going to be angry.

I've been a proud supporter of NPR my whole life in public service. While serving in the New York State Legislature, I fought for the launch of news programming on my local public radio station, WXXI. From that humble beginning over 30 years ago, I find myself standing on the floor of the House of Representatives, fighting for NPR again today.

I stand here because, quite simply, facts matter. This Nation wasn't built because we huffed and puffed and wished it were so. We didn't become a global leader by bloviating on 24-hour cable news, and we aren't solving the fundamental issues that face our Nation by passing this politically driven legislation to appease the far right.

Our Nation was built and will be rebuilt by the quiet efforts of millions of Americans across the country who will never make it on cable news and who will never appear on national television. It is these very Americans whom NPR dedicates its resources to finding, to covering, and to sharing the world with. Their stories aren't simple, and their efforts don't sell advertising space, but their stories matter. NPR's work to find the stories that matter is the in-depth intelligent reporting that I fight for today.

No matter what I say, some will still believe that NPR isn't worth funding because they want it to be true. Some will find it in their interests to scare Americans into believing in an NPR straw man, while others will take comfort in watching the straw man fall.

Yet, deep in our hearts, all of us know that governing through fear and divisive legislation is not a responsible way to move this country forward. It is certainly no replacement for creating jobs. With millions of Americans who are unemployed and struggling to live, we can't waste another minute on the House floor without debating a bill that will put some Americans back to work. We should not waste another minute ignoring the needs of millions of Americans while playing cheap political games.

Yesterday, I asked, Why only National Public Radio? Why not television? I think I know the answer to that.

A few years ago, that was tried. The House of Representatives actually tried to kill Big Bird, to destroy Elmo, and to get rid of Bert and Ernie, but it didn't work. I think they didn't want to try that one yet again.

The backers of this bill said to me yesterday that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund with their hard-earned money what they don't believe in. Well, that's an interesting theory, but democracies don't operate that way. If they could, my husband and I and two-thirds of the people in America would gladly be excused from paying the $8 billion a month that we pay for a war which we profoundly do not believe in. We simply must stop this nonsense. It makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

National Public Radio is something that you could turn off if you don't want to hear it, but for the millions of Americans who depend on it, this just cannot be done. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am going to yield myself 30 seconds to tell my colleague from California to calm himself. He doesn't have to worry. We are not equating war and NPR. What I had said was that the basis of this bill today was that people should not have to pay for what they don't believe in. If that's going to be the way the majority is going to run this House, then 66 percent of Americans would like to not pay for the war.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I do not. May I inquire if you have more?

I am prepared to close.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have had a vigorous debate here this morning, just as we had in the Rules Committee. A lot was said, I guess, because it needed to be said. A lot was said, I think, that we could argue with.

One is that we are doing this because it puts us on the road to deficit reduction. It is clear to everybody who reads, or maybe who listens to good programming, that this bill has no effect whatsoever on the deficit and saves no money. Not a dime. This is purely an ideological bill so that our Members can go home and brag about what they have done to public radio.

I want to talk a moment about what's in a New York Times editorial this morning. This bill is, says the Times, ``The latest example of House Republicans pursuing a longstanding ideological goal in the false name of fiscal prudence.''

The Times says, ``This is not a serious bill. It will never survive the Senate or a Presidential veto.''

And further, ``Cutting off that flow would have no effect on the deficit, but it would allow certain House Members to pretend for the folks back home that they struck a blow for liberty.''

I really don't understand this. I know that the present chair of the Rules Committee this morning said that all the legislation that we have done this

term has been on job creation. I don't believe there's enough evidence to convict on that, Mr. Speaker.

This, again, will cause jobs to be lost and does nothing for the deficit. I don't care what you want to say about it and how you want to dress it up, those are the absolute facts.

In a few moments, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat that previous question, I want to do a real jobs bill here. I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds To Create Jobs Now Act.

This bill will spur job creation here at home by extending through 2012 the successful Build America Bonds program to help State and local governments finance the rebuilding of American schools, hospitals, water systems and transit projects at significantly lower costs. It has been calculated that every $1 billion in Federal funds will create 34,800 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, weigh that against taking the little bit of money away from National Public Radio.

Build America Bonds are broadly supported by American business, the construction industry, and State and local governments. At a time of fiscal restraint, they are a good deal for the American taxpayer, wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private funds to rebuild America and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass jobs legislation today, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1076. The rule provides for ample debate on this bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 1076 prohibits direct funding to NPR--National Public Radio. In fiscal year 2010, NPR received over $5 million in direct Federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Moreover, hundreds of public radio stations received direct radio grants in the amount of $67 million. Radio stations can use these grants for whatever they want. It's unrestricted. Often, stations use these funds to pay dues to NPR and pay fees for NPR programing. According to NPR's Web site, they are ``an independent, self-supporting media organization.'' However, they also admit their revenue ``comes primarily from fees paid by their member stations.'' In fact, membership dues and station programing fees account for 36 percent of NPR funding.

In H.R. 1, we started the process of letting NPR operate on its own, without taxpayer involvement, by defunding it for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. However, H.R. 1 only addressed appropriated funds for the rest of the current fiscal year. The bill we have before us today addresses the authorized use of funds not just for the rest of fiscal year 2011, but going forward.

Under this bill, NPR will continue to provide its programming. They just can't use taxpayer dollars to subsidize it. Moreover, our goal on H.R. 1076 is that there won't be a need for this funding going forward. This is something the Appropriations Committee can factor into their funding decisions for fiscal year 2012 and the future. Let me stress again, this bill does not fully defund NPR.

What this bill does do is start weaning NPR off of Federal dollars. Local radio stations are still allowed to pay membership dues, and they can still buy NPR programs. They just can't use your and my hard-earned tax dollars to pay for them.

Instead, the grants that these local stations get will be used for local needs. They can create more original programming about issues happening in their areas that are important to their communities. They can pay for their staffs and even hire more local producers and hosts for their new programs.

The Federal Government's addiction to spending has driven us to our current $14 trillion debt. We need to refocus on what our core mission is. We should not be using tax dollars that American citizens worked hard to earn for something that could be paid for privately.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

My inquiry is to the gentlewoman from New York, do you have any more speakers?

I do not.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to your attention that the public watching this today on C-SPAN does not receive a single Federal dollar in regards to the operation of C-SPAN.

We're not closing down local radio stations. We're actually giving them the ability to liberate themselves from Federal dollars.

My good friends on the other side of the aisle continue to refuse to prioritize about what's important for America. They continue on a path of just spend, because all programs are inherently good.

While you've heard a lot of us like NPR in regard to certain programming, there's others that we do not. Mr. Speaker, I was reminded the other day of a quote by Thomas Jefferson:

``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.''

With that in mind, I can't in good conscience support continuing to fund NPR with tax dollars.

A large number of Americans fundamentally disagree with the content and mission of NPR. Moreover, this is a program that can be privately funded. NPR's own officials said they don't need Federal dollars to continue.

We are not trying to harm NPR. We are actually trying to liberate them from Federal tax dollars. We need to get back to the core mission of the Federal Government. As much as any of us here, including myself, may enjoy programs like ``Car Talk'' and ``Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me,'' you can't tell me that that is a core mission of the Federal Government. Our good friends in the same sentence talked about war, national defense, and NPR. They don't equate. The Constitution is clear about our requirement to protect the American people.

H.R. 1076 is a return to the normal procedure of the House. Authorizing committees provide us with bills that set out the priorities for the House and the Appropriations Committee funds based on authorizations.

With H.R. 1076, we let the Appropriations Committee know that National Public Radio doesn't need Federal tax dollars anymore. Local stations can create their own programs. They can reorganize their financing so that grant money they might use for membership and programming fees can go elsewhere, and they can do private fund-raising they need for the dues and programming from NPR.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from our beautiful State of California, Congresswoman Doris Matsui.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, a highly valued member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have left on each side?

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. 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.)

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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.

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. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

At this time I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman, the great Irishman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time we have remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the brilliant, brilliant gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield my remaining 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending congratulations to my very good friend, the gentleman from Spring Hill, a former sheriff, Mr. Nugent, for his maiden voyage in managing this rule. He has done a superb job in taking on this issue.

Let me say at the outset, having listened to the debate from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, every single thing that we have been doing on the floor of the House of Representatives is focused on job creation and economic growth. Virtually everything that we have done is focused on job creation and economic growth.

Now, some say, Why is it you are talking about National Public Radio now? What does that have to do with creating jobs? Well, the fact of the matter is, if we don't take on the $14 trillion national debt that we have in this country and the $1.6 trillion annual deficits that we have as far as the eye can see, we are not going to be implementing pro-growth economic policies.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle might argue that bringing about some kind of reduction in funding for National Public Radio will cost jobs. The disparity is that my friends on the other side of the aisle tend to focus on government-created jobs, and we want to focus on what it is the American people desperately want and

need, which is long-term, good private sector jobs. And so everything that we do to try to reduce the size and scope and reach of government is focused on getting, as my friend from Vermont has just said, getting our fiscal house in order so that we can create jobs.

Yesterday up in the Rules Committee, my California colleague Ms. Eshoo referred to National Public Radio as a ``national treasure.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a fan of National Public Radio. I think that the term ``national treasure'' may just be a little bit of a stretch. I have been proud to support three local stations, two in Los Angeles, KPCC and KCRW; here in Washington, D.C., WAMU. I have been proud to participate in pledge drives for all these stations. I have done it for public television. I believe in voluntary contributions.

Now, yesterday Ms. Eshoo said that every American pays 77 cents for the benefit of National Public Radio. And while I am a proud listener of National Public Radio, I will say that I reckon that there are probably half the American people--that's just a wild guess on my part--maybe half the American people who have never even heard of, much less even listened to, National Public Radio. And the notion of taking 77 cents from them for National Public Radio is, to me, anathema to the whole concept of what it is that we are trying to do as a Nation.

Now, my friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the former chairman of the Rules Committee, referred to National Public Radio as--and this is not the exact word that was used--but sort of a paragon of virtue. Rather than bloviating on cable television, we have this great, great model of National Public Radio up there, something to which we can all bow and listen to as the one truth before us.

Well, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that I've heard some inaccurate things on National Public Radio before, not just things with which I disagree, but there have been inaccuracies. And so, with all of the choices out there, I believe that National Public Radio should be one of them; but they are only one of the choices that people have.

And since National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting came into existence, we all know that we've experienced this explosion of information from all kinds of sources.

So that's why, Mr. Speaker, while this measure doesn't obliterate funding for National Public Radio, what it does is it puts us, as my friend from Spring Hill has said so well, on a glide path towards recognizing that since National Public Radio receives a very small amount of its funding that they utilize totally from the Federal Government, this puts them on a glide path towards something that I believe will dramatically enhance the quality of coverage and the credibility of National Public Radio, and that is to have voluntary support.

And I will say right here that when we are successful, when we are successful at weaning National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting away from compulsory taxpayer dollars used to fund them, I personally will increase my level of contributions, my level of contributions to those local stations and to other aspects.

We need to look at ways in which this shortfall that will exist is addressed, and I believe that we can do that.

And I have to say that, procedurally, it's very interesting to listen to people talk about the characterization of this rule that has come down before us. It's simply because less than 48 hours was provided for the announcement of simply the Rules Committee meeting, not the fact that we're here on the floor. And my distinguished friend from Rochester had, on nearly 70 occasions, when she was chairman of the Rules Committee, including the several scenic river studies that were put into place, and other legislation like that called emergency meetings of the House Rules Committee. And so I think that to characterize this procedure as it's been is not quite as appropriate as it should be.

And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, I wish this could have been handled a little differently. We all know that we passed H.R. 1 as it is, that, in fact, does defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But this measure, in and of itself, focuses on a problem that is out there. It needs to be addressed. And I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.