Rescissions Package: Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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. IRA Clean Energy Incentives Defense
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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, 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source