DeLauro Calls to Increase Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
WASHINGTON, DC (March 28, 2017) — Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) today delivered the following statement at a hearing on the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. DeLauro is the Senior Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
Here are the remarks, as delivered:
Thank you very, very much. I am delighted to have this hearing today—a long time in coming. I want to welcome you, Pat Harrison, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
We look forward to your testimony, but I first want to say congratulations to you and to everyone at the Corporation on the 50th Anniversary of the Public Broadcasting Act—1967, signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson. There we are, but it is also interesting to note, when I was reading through materials that President Eisenhower, believed—because the origins come out of the Space Race, come out of the Cold War—that at the time, President Eisenhower and Congress saw the educational programming as a way for the United States to compete in science, in technology, and in mathematics, as part of our national defense, so you stand on solid ground, my friend.
And as we reflect on the last 50 years of evidence-based early learning programs, local journalism, and public safety partnerships, it is a particularly opportune time for our committee to discuss the importance of public broadcasting in our local communities. And as the Trump Administration proposes to eliminate federal support for public television and public radio, we need to consider the profound impact that this organization has had in our communities.
As you noted in your testimony, our appropriation for CPB supports approximately 1,500 locally owned and operated public television and radio stations. You serve nearly 99 percent of American people in rural and urban communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four commonwealths and territories.
The vast majority of federal funds are allocated to local stations—as Ms. Harrison mentions in her testimony, 95 percent of all funding, that's $432 million, goes to support programs and services. The dollars don't stay in Washington, DC—they are directly infused into local communities across this country. And quite frankly, I do have and I won't go through it, a list—in particularly Members of this subcommittee, of the stations in our areas that are beneficiaries of the grants that you distribute. 248 of the 575 station grantees currently receiving CPB support are considered rural. These stations provide trusted local journalism and high-quality educational programming—and they play a crucial role in public safety.
An example, PBS affiliate WCTE-TV in Cookeville, Tennessee is a perfect example. The station is the only one that the majority of residents in Upper Cumberland County can receive with an off air antenna. To quote the station manager, Becky Magura, "I know it's hard for people who are sitting in Washington and urban areas to comprehend that people still need an antenna to be able to receive only one station, but it's a fact."
Ms. Magura also said, and I quote, "I really wish I could talk to President Trump. I really wish he would let me show him where we live. I wish he could see the difference this station makes in the lives of the people we serve. Maybe he would see that funding differently."
If we cut federal funding, we are killing stations like WCTE. Studies have shown that alternative sources of funding are unrealistic. In 2012, Booz and Company—at the request of this subcommittee—did an exhaustive study that debunked many common myths about financing of public broadcasting. Their report found, and I quote, "There is simply no substitute for the federal investment to accomplish the public service mission that Congress has assigned to public broadcasters, and that the American people overwhelmingly support."
They also found that the hardest hit stations would be the rural ones, where federal funding accounts for 40 to 50 percent of their budgets. They write, and I quote, "In the absence of the federal appropriation, a domino effect will result in the loss of those stations most ‘at risk' first, then a cascading debilitating effect on remaining stations…at bottom, the loss of federal support for public broadcasting risks the collapse of the system itself."
We cannot afford to let this to happen. The Trump Administration's proposal to eliminate funding for CPB means evidence-based early learning programming is on the line. According to CPB, "PBS is the number one source of media content for a preschool teacher." Public broadcasting is responsible for high-quality content that aligns with literacy, math and science early learning goals, and state standards. Evidence-based programs—these programs are critical when it comes to bridging the achievement gap—they educate children at home and in school. The content is freely available, and parents who use these resources developed with public broadcasting funds report that they see increased awareness in their child's math learning. And a body of more than 100 research and evaluation studies completed since 2005 show that public media's literacy and math content engages children and enhances their early learning skills.
CPB, in partnership with PBS, is a Ready to Learn Grantee. Ready to Learn was established in 1992, reauthorized with bipartisan support in the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, and it makes grants to support development of educational television, digital content targeted at preschool kids and their families. This is what CPB represents—free, accessible, goal-aligned early learning resources that benefit every family. That is what is at stake.
And meanwhile, CPB is requesting flat funding—it's flat funding—for the seventh and eighth years in a row. In reality, eight straight years of flat funding is equivalent to a cut of 13 percent, after you adjust for inflation. The Trump Administration is proposing to cut $54 billion in non-defense discretionary spending. That cut includes the complete elimination of federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As I have outlined, that would be a travesty.
If we are serious about supporting high-quality educational programming, we should be talking about an increase of 13 percent for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—not a seventh and eighth straight year of flat funding, or certainly not a cut, nor elimination.
The border wall is projected to cost $21.6 billion. I suggest that we save that money that we spend on the wall, and that we use those funds to support public broadcasting for the next 50 years.
We have to support essential programs. You cannot do more with less—you can only do less with less. And I thank you for everything that you have done, and I look forward to hearing your testimony today.