Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this is sort of a charade that's going on today. Our Republican friends allow, for example, businesses to self-certify in a whole range of other areas. This is not about that. What this is, is another attempt to sabotage health care reform.

America is involved in a grand reform. Some of us are in States like Oregon, California, Washington, New York, and Maryland where we're actually working to implement the reform, and our citizens are going to have lower rates, more choices, and subsidies for individuals and small businesses for better coverage.

In other parts of the country some of our Republican friends have decided to sabotage implementation. Customers won't get extra help in Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, or Wyoming, where insurance commissioners won't even review health plans to make sure that they're offered in the new marketplaces to provide consumers with required benefits and protections. In Missouri, believe it or not, the Republican legislature has made it illegal for new health insurance marketplaces for State employees to tell people what they're eligible for. Today, this is one more effort to throw sand in the gears.

The response from Republicans, who have no vision for health care, refuses to acknowledge that what we are working on now and what they derisively call ObamaCare, actually had its roots in a bipartisan consensus of what's necessary to get more value out of American health care.

The health care reform train has left the station. We should simply reject today this misguided attempt to sabotage it. Americans from coast to coast will be able to see the difference in communities that are embracing it and implementing it versus those that are trying to sabotage it.

In the course of the next 2 years, the facts will be clear. Mercifully, what the House is going to pass today is not going to be enacted into law, and the rest of us can get to work implementing reform.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: this is not about the integrity of the tax system. There are any number of areas where we rely far more on discretion to individual taxpayers, and there's no appetite, actually, to move in those areas.

My Republican friends are not interested in providing adequate resources to the IRS to be able to appropriately enforce the tax law right now, and we have hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes that aren't collected.

But this is part of a mean-spirited and shortsighted effort to sabotage the health care reform effort. Bear in mind what's going on in States around the country.

In Missouri, the Republican legislature has been on a rampage that will even make it illegal for State employees to tell Missourians what they're entitled to under State law. This is a new low in, I think, political malpractice.

The Republicans are willing to flirt with shutting down the American Government in their attempt to prevent Americans from getting health care they're entitled to under the law. This is wrong.

I strongly urge that we reject this mean-spirited approach.

Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, a sober day of reflection on the events of 9/11. Twelve years ago today, I was on the floor of the House when we got word of the first attacks.

It unleashed a series of horrific events, but those events continue to this day. There is another tragedy that is occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan--the thousands of Iraqi and Afghan nationals whose lives are at risk because they helped Americans as guides, drivers, and interpreters.

That is why we developed a special immigrant visa program--to help these people trapped in the country against those with long memories who seek revenge. But this program is seriously broken.

There are thousands of men and women on this waiting list, some who have died while they wait to have the paperwork processed. The State Department won't even tell us how many are on the waiting list. It is seriously broken. Congress can't fix it. But at least we can put in the CR an extension so that the program doesn't expire at the end of the month and their lives lost.

Congress returns to Washington this week after a month connecting with people at home, hopefully with a little time with family and friends.

Some think our overwhelming agenda was made nearly impossible with the Syrian question, which no one expected when we recessed--somewhat ironic--even though 100,000 Syrians have been killed and 2 million refugees are flooding into neighboring countries.

We face a looming budget showdown and a debt ceiling crisis. While we have futile votes to defund ObamaCare, the rest of the country is in the midst of a dramatic change in health care, perhaps the most profound in half a century. The health care reform train has left the station.

What if we took a break from sabotaging ObamaCare and creating a debt ceiling crisis to do our job as representatives of the people and as leaders?

What are we for?

We might start with Syria. I have deep reservations about the use of force, but as one of the people who called upon the President to involve Congress in this decision, I think we have an obligation to at least hear him out. Let's work to refine the Russian proposal, which appears to have had some American origins.

What about the 2 million refugees who need our help, to say nothing of their host countries?

Let's seize upon some of the promising signs out of Iran, from their new leadership, to make progress, both in Syria and with the Iranian nuclear question.

Domestically, let's spend our time rebuilding and renewing America, not just lamenting the poor shape of our infrastructure. Let's work together to support the vision and the resources to rebuild and renew the country and put Americans back to work.

Internationally--I see my good friend and colleague, Congressman Ted Poe, on the floor. Why don't we zero in on the efforts with our international Water for the World legislation to help deal with sanitation and safe drinking water for poor people around the globe?

Think about those 200 million hours women will spend in sub-Saharan Africa gathering water today, time that they won't spend in school or working for their families.

Let's use the fall to identify and move forward on the vast array of things where we actually agree we can work together and they won't cost very much. America will be the better for it, and so will Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fitting conclusion to a week that has shown the collapse of the Republican legislative agenda. Remember, this is the time we were supposed to be voting on budgets, but the Republicans cannot even bring themselves to allow a vote on the budget that they themselves have mandated. We're not voting on the Transportation-HUD; we're not voting on Interior. They refuse to allow a conference committee to be appointed so that we can reconcile differences on the budget, setting up a showdown over a shutdown of the government next month.

Now we're dealing with health care for arguably the 40th time that they are going to ``repeal'' it. The bill is not going anywhere. They repeatedly demonstrated at our hearing yesterday in Ways and Means that my Republican colleagues don't even understand how the bill that they are so adamantly opposed to works.

We have not seen any attempt to improve, to refine. What we have seen is an unprecedented effort to sabotage legislation, to make it not work for the American people, to confuse, to undercut. This is something that is unprecedented, to the best of my knowledge, in what we have had in Congress in the past. What more fitting illustration of a group that's bankrupt of ideas and bent on simply attempting to force their way for an agenda that is so extreme that they cannot agree to bring it to the floor to vote on it.

I urge rejection of this charade.

Mr. Speaker, as America prepares for the holiday season, it is important to pause and reflect on what we can

do for others as well as ourselves. I hope that Congress will give a gift of life, health and hope by helping people around the world with something that most Americans take for granted--safe drinking water.

Nearly 900 million of the world's poorest do not have clean drinking water, and fully 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation. This shortfall poses a significant challenge for development and security around the world, reinforcing a cycle of poverty and instability that represents both a humanitarian disaster and a national security threat.

Water-related diseases are particularly brutal in how they target children: 90 percent of all deaths caused by diarrheal diseases are children under 5 years of age, mostly in developing countries. In all, 1.8 million children under the age of 5 die every year, more than from AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. The economic impacts are devastating--inadequate sanitation in India alone costs that country $53.8 billion, or 6.4 percent of its GDP every year.

What's more, dirty water directly affects every area of development. Children cannot attend school if they are sick from dirty water, and adults suffering from water-borne illnesses overwhelm hospitals and cannot go to work. Hours spent looking for and collecting clean water mean hours not spent adding to a family's economic well-being. In short, the best intentioned efforts at development fail if the basic necessity of clean water is not met.

In this period of good tidings, there is good news with water. The solution to this problem is cheap and relatively straightforward. We don't have to spend millions searching for a cure. Sometimes something as simple as teaching the value of hand washing, or providing access to technology we already have is all it takes to save millions of lives and increase economic development. What we lack is leadership and accountability.

It is time for Congress to act again. The Water for the World Act of 2013 builds on current U.S. efforts to provide those in need with greater access to clean water and sanitation. And in this period of tight budgets, it is important that the Water for the World Act doesn't ask for any increase in funding, but rather improves the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of international aid programs. Given the strains on Federal resources and the depth of need, it is essential that we are able to target our efforts more efficiently.

The Water for the World Act also gives the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development the tools needed to leverage the investments they are already making by elevating the current positions within the State Department and USAID to coordinate the diplomatic policy of the U.S. on global freshwater issues and to implement country-specific water strategies.

There is nothing more fundamental to the human condition and global health than access to clean water and sanitation. More needs to be done, and it needs to be done well. Taxpayers are rightly demanding better results and greater transparency from foreign aid. This bill provides the tools and incentives to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation--the ``Cider Industry Deserves Equal Regulation,'' or ``CIDER,'' Act--to update the provisions of the tax code that relate to the cider industry.

Across the country, cidermakers large and small are developing their craft, establishing businesses and brands, and providing new markets for our nation's apple and pear orchards. As they pursue this work; they do so in an uncertain tax and regulatory environment, one where slight variations in the fermenting process can cause them to run afoul of narrow tax and alcohol regulatory rules. Congress, by enacting this legislation, would support this growing industry and ensure that it is treated fairly by regulatory agencies.

During the fermentation process a variety of factors can lead to small changes in the composition of a cider's alcohol content and carbonation. Because of the narrow way that hard cider is currently defined in the tax code, these small variations can lead to cider being taxed at a rate fifteen times higher than what the statute clearly intended. This legislation would broaden this definition to include pear as well as apple cider and would greatly reduce the chance that improper taxation would occur. The legislation also aligns the US cider definitions more closely with global definitions for these products, and helps ensure that American-made cider is competitive on international markets.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to support the American cider industry.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, if someone asked what a bow tie-wearing progressive Democrat from Oregon and my colleague Ted Poe, a cowboy, boot-wearing conservative Republican from Texas, could agree on, you would have said, Not much.

Today, we are partners on an issue, however, that makes sense regardless of your politics: ensuring sustainable, equitable access to clean water for nearly 800 million women, children, and men who don't have it and the 2.5 billion without even the most basic sanitation services. Ted Poe and I think that politics should stop with water. That's why, today, we are introducing the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2013 (H.R. 2901).

Since Congress passed the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act in 2005, the United States has become a global leader in efforts to increase access to clean water and sanitation, developing and implementing some of the most innovative approaches to help those in greatest need. We must not only maintain this progress but work to further refine and focus the efforts at USAID and at the Department of State by enacting the World Act.

We are committed because dirty water and a lack of sanitation affects all areas of development assistance. This is especially the case when it comes to women and children. More children are killed by waterborne disease than any other. Increasing access to clean water and sanitation has a significant multiplier effect on other areas of development, enabling us to do more with less--critical in a time of constrained budget resources.

Every day, the world has more people but fewer freshwater resources. Our bipartisan legislation will give the United States the capacity to avoid unnecessary loss of life and conflict in the future. It would ensure that water, sanitation, and hygiene programs are reflected in other development assistance; prioritize long-lasting impacts of United States foreign aid dollars; and increase the focusing on monitoring, evaluation, transparency, and capacity building.

Children cannot attend school if they're sick from dirty water. Half the world's hospital beds today are filled with people suffering from waterborne disease needlessly. Hours spent getting water are hours not working or in school.

A lack of clean drinking water has a disproportionate effect on women, who, in developing countries, walk an average of 3.7 miles a day to get water. The estimates are that 40 billion working hours are lost each year in Africa alone--200 million hours today.

Having water means girls can go to school and build a better future. It also reduces the risk of violence and sexual assault. A study by Doctors without Borders found that 82 percent of the women and girls treated for rape in West and South Darfur were attacked while they were gathering water or firewood.

The challenge is not getting easier, because 97 percent of the water on Earth is salty and unfit to drink. Of the 2\1/2\ percent, roughly, of the Earth's water that is fresh, two-thirds of that is frozen-- locked away in the ice caps and glaciers. Although it's rapidly melting because of climate change, that's not going to help us, because it will be largely salty as well. We've got less than 1 percent of global freshwater available for human use; and because of the demands for growing food, energy and industry, only about one-tenth of a percent is available for people to drink. This tiny fraction is further diminished by deficient or nonexistent water infrastructure. Even in the United States, we waste 6 billion gallons of freshwater every day through leaky pipes. We are entering an era of severe water scarcity that the Department of Defense warns could lead to global insecurity.

In short, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more fundamental to families and global health than clean water and sanitation. More needs to be done, and it needs to be done well. Taxpayers, understandably, demand better results and greater transparency from foreign aid. This bill provides the tools and incentives to do just that.

We urge our colleagues to adopt our motto--``politics stops at water''--and support this effort. This magnitude will take a team working together, united in the goal of saving lives and improving communities around the world. Please join us in this critical legislation, the Paul Simon Water for the World Act (H.R. 2901).

Mr. Chair, as an administrator and policymaker at the local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of common-sense regulations that save lives. I have also seen the challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that are difficult to navigate. However, in my experience, regulations tend to be less stringent than necessary rather than overly strict. There are ways to make regulation more efficient and easier to navigate, but we must do so in a way that protects public health, maintains our environmental protections, and ensures fair market interactions.

For the second time in less than two years, today Congress is considering H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. I oppose this legislation, as I did in 2011, and urge my colleagues to vote against it. This bill is an attack on our government's basic ability to enforce laws that protect public health and the environment. Every major law requires enforcement by the executive branch of government, and enforcement requires agencies to write regulations that explain and make public how that agency is going to enforce the law. This is how legislation is implemented. This bill would require both the House and the Senate to vote on every major regulation before that regulation can be enforced, providing only seventy days to do so. This allows Congress to effectively veto any legislation we have already passed, simply by taking no action and keeping agencies from moving forward with implementation. Agencies will not be able to enforce new laws or complete updates to regulations as required by existing laws, such as the Clean Air Act.

We do not need to extend Congress's dysfunction to the rest of the federal government. I strongly oppose H.R. 367 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, we will be meeting with President Obama here in the Capitol. While I appreciate the President's commitment to the economy, and I do believe he is passionate about renewing and rebuilding America, there is a certain irony to having the conversation today, because this is the very same day the House is supposed to be completing its work on a woefully inadequate budget bill to fund Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

By insisting on an increase in defense spending and approving a budget target that is unrealistically low and freezing in the sequestration, we are seeing budgets that bear no relationship to reality: $44.1 billion in transportation discretionary appropriations, down 15 percent from the authorized level. It makes no attempt to deal with the looming collapse of the highway trust fund; it slashes Amtrak a third below the current level--hardly responsible.

Many of the budget reductions in the housing programs and the Community Development Block Grants are even worse. We began those deliberations on the same day the American Society for Civil Engineers released their report card on the state of America's infrastructure. The grade was D-plus. It was

only that high because we have increased some private investment, some local government funding and, of course, the reviled stimulus funding that helped reduce some of the more egregious shortfalls while putting people to work.

It is ironic that some of the rationale for some of this bizarre budget behavior, which, thankfully, will never be enacted into law, is the need to save taxpayer money and reduce deficits.

In reality, if this budget were approved, it would actually end up costing American taxpayers more. Families will earn even less if we continue this funding level for infrastructure that is inadequate. There will be hundreds of millions of hours of time lost as people are stuck in traffic, and the number of miles of congestion increased over 30 percent. Of course, our businesses will pay almost a half trillion dollars more in transportation costs and repair while business will be underperforming, and that will cost money too.

The path forward is clear. We should provide increased funding for transportation and infrastructure. The gas tax has not been increased in 20 years, which, incidentally, was the last time we had balanced budgets. This is the quickest way to get the new revenues that many feel are necessary to be part of any rational, long-term grand budget agreement and tax reform.

It would be supported by a wide array of business, labor, environmental groups, and local government. Indeed, there is a vast coalition that is saying, tax me so I can do my job better and we can revitalize America's communities and our sagging economy.

It is no longer acceptable for us to talk past one another. By dealing boldly with the infrastructure crisis in the context of realistic budgets and meaningful tax reform, we can put Americans back to work. We can break the logjam here on Capitol Hill. We can strengthen the economy while we make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard on the floor that we shouldn't base our diplomacy on the Iranian political calendar--I agree--but we shouldn't base our diplomacy and our foreign policy based on our political calendar.

Recently, we enacted the most effective, crippling economic sanctions against Iran--ever--and it was done by the hard work of the administration, supported by Congress, to be able to mobilize an unprecedented coalition of people who agreed with us that they wanted to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons and sending that signal.

But sadly, you can forget about President-elect Rouhani. This weakens President Obama. The optics now are to pull the rug out from underneath the newly elected moderate candidate. He's not my guy, he's not yours, but of the choices, it was a signal by the Iranian people.

Think about the future tools. Are you really going to be able to ratchet up these sanctions much more dramatically? Do you expect China and Japan are going to follow that path? And, if they work, what about the dislocations to the American economy and the global economy in moving this oil off the market? I think people ought to consider that. Ultimately, the only solution is a diplomatic solution to try and work this through. We're not going to go to war and nuclear bomb them. We are not going to occupy Iran.

It's ironic. Until recently--maybe still--Iran is the only country in the Middle East that had a positive view of Americans despite the fact that we helped the British overthrow their popularly elected President, Mossadegh, in 1953 and install the Shah as a dictator to rule over them.

I think there is a possibility that that recent election makes a difference in Iran. I hope it does. But one way to guarantee that it doesn't is to tell the Iranian people, We don't care what you do. We're going to rachet up the sanctions. We're going to undercut the new guy. We're going to tell you that we're just going to go down this path. It ought to be based on facts, on reason. Let these sanctions work. Don't undercut our President and the ability to be flexible if there is some daylight. Don't poke the Iranian people in the eye and ignore the sorry history we've had of fumbling the relationship with that country.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we may take advantage of revisiting this yet again to have a teachable moment here.

My good friend from New Jersey talked about some of the problems of the Metro system. As a practical matter, many of those problems are the result of 40 years of an accumulated maintenance deficit and a lack of a long-term, reliable partnership with the Federal Government, exemplified by the irresponsibility of this amendment that is being proposed.

The Federal Government is the primary beneficiary of Metro. Bear in mind these 68 square miles that represent the District of Columbia: 21 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government, and a much larger percentage of the valuable land is tax-exempt; 30 percent of the jobs are Federal jobs even in these difficult times, and they're not paying taxes to the District of Columbia or to Metro; 40 percent of the rush-hour traffic is of Federal employees, and we suffer some of the worst traffic congestion in the United States in this region.

We have a serious accumulated deficit for maintenance, and this was part of a bipartisan, long-term agreement to solve this problem and improve service and meet the Federal responsibilities. I appreciate the advocacy and the eloquence of my friends from Virginia and Maryland who have come to the floor and pointed out this responsibility. I speak as somebody who represents a district 2,300 miles away, but I, too, have an interest in the Federal Government's being a responsible partner in helping Metro function properly.

Many of us were on the floor of the House during 9/11. That was a horrible week in our Nation's Capital. But for the Metro system, the area would have been paralyzed.

I suggest that this is, I hope, well intentioned; but I think it's shortsighted, and it underscores the problems we have had in the district to deal with long-term capital investments. As has been pointed out, the local governments surrounding are part of the partnership and are contributing money.

I would hope that the Federal Government understands its responsibility and not only do we reject this misguided amendment, but hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to reaffirm the partnership, the role that the Federal Government plays, the benefit that the Federal Government obtains for our employees, for our visitors, for the land that is located here that occupies Federal activities.

Mr. Chairman, these are tea leaves that people read. I am sad that this bill underfunds infrastructure across the country on the very day that the American Society of Civil Engineers puts out their report that gives us a D-plus rating for infrastructure in this country, that we need increased private investment, local government funding. We have $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. It will be necessary just to bring our infrastructure up to standard. And this will be the quickest way to put Americans to work at family-wage jobs from coast to coast. I would hope at some point we get back to our responsibilities overall for infrastructure, but in the meantime we should reject this effort to undermine the partnership and the Federal responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2218, the so-called Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. There are many problems with this legislation. It ignores the significant public health concerns around coal ash, which includes potent toxins such as mercury, lead, and sulfur. It does nothing to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash, and in fact allows a state-by-state race to the bottom. Finally, it preempts citizens from taking legal action to protect themselves in situations where public health is endangered.

I am particularly troubled by the fact that this legislation significantly restructures environmental regulatory authority by stripping the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, of its ability to enforce any regulations around coal ash disposal. Protecting public health is part of what the EPA was created to do and we must give them the tools to be able fulfill their mission. I strongly oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Palazzo and Mr. Nugent, for their work on this important amendment.

Going forward, it is critical that we ensure our defense spending in no way disproportionally and unfairly impacts our Guard and Reserve, which this amendment would prevent.

America faces an unusual national defense crisis.

It's not that we are at risk of anyone surpassing our military might; America remains by far the most powerful nation on the planet.

The problem is that the way we invest in our military is not sustainable. The U.S. accounts for almost half of worldwide military spending, more than the next 14 countries combined.

We must find a way to maintain our strength, but spend less and smarter. This should be done by placing a greater emphasis on the role of our National Guard and Reserve to strengthen national readiness going forward.

The many Guard and Reserve deployments over the last decade have resulted in highly seasoned guardsmen with more skill and experience than we've ever seen.

We cannot allow Big Army, Air Force or Navy to push their sequestration-woes onto our citizen soldiers. Under sequestration, technicians are the only uniformed military personnel who are being furloughed. While we must continue working to replace the devastating sequester cuts for all affected, furloughing military technicians undermines our last decade of investment, which is imprudent and will cost us in the long run.

When it comes to keeping America safe in the midst of shrinking budgets, the National Guard is an investment with a very high return and should play a critical role in meeting the demands of our 21st century commitments.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate two communities who, though oceans apart, found a way to honor their shared identities. I am honored to represent one of these communities in Congress: Boring, Oregon, a small community a few miles outside of the Portland Metro region. The other is Dull, Scotland, in the northern United Kingdom.

These two communities share cultural and geographic similarities, in addition to their quirky names. Both communities lie at the base of prominent regional mountain ranges and neighbor cherished farmland. The county surrounding Boring, Oregon, Clackamas County, plays a prominent role promoting and hosting equestrian events and I am told the same is true of Dull, Scotland's Perth and Kinross Counties.

The Oregon Legislature recently passed House Bill 2352 establishing August 9 as Boring & Dull Day. As a result of this alliance, both communities have received significant attention and have seen growth in economic activity and tourism. I was delighted to be contacted by the Boring Community Planning Organization to share in a celebration honoring this occasion. It is my hope that this ``Pair for the Ages'' thrive well into future.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Virginia. I respect his opinion; but with all due respect, I think we've got a more fundamental problem than the calendar. The Republican leadership refuses to allow a conference committee on the budget between the House and the Senate to reconcile our differences. We can be here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; but if the Republican leadership refuses to allow the process to work, we're not going to get anywhere. And that's where we are right now.

My friends on the Appropriations Committee refuse to deal with the budget level that was passed into law 2 years ago that fixed us on a course. They have a level of funding that is literally slashing and burning Federal spending. The latest manifestation of this battle is putting in jeopardy the very existence of public broadcasting.

I would have hoped that we were past that when the last Congress targeted NPR and tried to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Luckily, the 170 million Americans who don't just listen or watch public broadcasting, but depend on it, unleashed an unprecedented show of support. As a result, the Republican leadership walked it back.

One good thing about that budget battle 2 years ago was that it called for a study to look for alternatives for the 14 percent of Federal money that supports public broadcasting. The study is in and it clearly shows there's no viable alternative to those 14 cents on the dollar.

Many of the proposals that have been suggested would actually result in less money, overall, for public broadcasting in the long term. Yet the House appropriations bill, we're told, is going to eliminate Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding.

Last summer, I had a fascinating conversation with my friend Ken Burns, who pointed out that his six projects in the pipeline would never have been made, let alone be seen, without funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So I hope you enjoyed his show last fall about the Dust Bowl, because if the Republicans have their way, you will never see his programs about the Roosevelts, Jackie Robinson, Vietnam, or Hemingway.

Remember how well it worked for Governor Romney when he singled out broadcasting as one of the five projects that he would defund? The Republicans, sadly, pander to a tiny fraction of the American public that is even a minority in their own party. Polls show two-thirds of Republicans surveyed would either keep funding for public broadcasting where it is or increase it. What resonates with some Republican primary voters is not what America wants, needs, or believes.

The unprecedented threat comes at exactly the time when America needs public broadcasting the most. ``NPR News,'' the object of the greatest Republican scorn, is the most trusted brand in American news media. PBS shows like ``Sesame Street'' have helped three generations of parents raise their children with effective, commercial-free educational program.

Locally owned news is becoming only a memory for most America, as large corporations buy up local stations and newspapers. There's no money to be made by commercial stations that cater to the special needs of rural and small-town America. Luckily, public broadcasting is there because their mission is to inform and serve, not just make money.

We must stop the attack on this critical service, especially for rural and small-town America. It's time for the 170 million Americans who depend on public broadcasting every month to again fight back and for Congress to finally listen. The radical proposal to slash public broadcasting, defund NPR, to terminate public broadcasting as we know it is a powerful signal of how far out of step the Republican leadership is from the country they're supposed to represent.

There's no reason to make public broadcasting, which Republicans including Barry Goldwater, helped launch, into a partisan issue. Public broadcasting has broad support from Republicans, independents, and Democrats alike. That's why PBS and its member stations were named number one in public trust and an excellent use of tax dollars for 10 years in a row.

It's time for the people who believe in public broadcasting to stand up to this extremism and settle the question once and for all about the future of public broadcasting. Unless we fight now, there may be nothing left to defend.