[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 16, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H505-H507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND RELIGIOUS BROADCASTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House regarding the 
issue of religious freedom and religious broadcasting.
  A little bit of background, if I could. This whole issue began on 
December 29 when the Federal Communications Commission in a decision 
based on a license swap, a license swap in this case in Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania, between a commercial broadcasting station and a non-
commercial broadcasting station.
  In this case the religious broadcaster was seeking to swap their 
commercial license for a non-commercial license, something that, by the 
way, is rather routine at the Federal Communications Commission. When 
the license swap came up, the FCC allowed the swap, but said that, 
based on their opinion, the religious broadcaster, who was going to 
have the non-commercial license, that they needed additional guidance 
in regard to their religious broadcasting and whether that religious 
broadcasting fell under the requirement that the majority of 
programming be educational or cultural.
  This was a little noticed opinion in license swap, except that some 
very alert member of my staff was able to find this decision and in 
fact brought it to my attention. The more we looked into it, the more 
that we thought it was rather odd that on a 3 to 2 vote in the FCC, 
that is the three Democrat appointees, including the chairman, voted in 
favor of these what I think can only be described as limitations or 
restrictions on religious broadcasting, whereas the two Republican 
members voted against, that it raised some serious questions as to 
whether the FCC majority did indeed have an agenda that was not in the 
best interests of religious broadcasting.
  Now, over the years in non-commercial licenses, religious 
broadcasting had prima facia met the requirements of educational and 
cultural under their programming, and this was never an issue, and it 
was not until this issue came up in this license swap over the holidays 
that it really did raise some serious questions.
  I was so concerned about it, Mr. Speaker, that I, during the recess, 
before the Congress adjourned again in January, started drafting 
legislation that would reverse the FCC decision and also required that 
when the FCC was going to make this severe policy change, that they had 
to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, have these hearings in the 
open, have public comment, just like they would do with any other issue 
that comes before them as a ``independent'' agency.
  That really became kind of a rallying cry then for Members of 
Congress. For the religious broadcasting community, the millions of 
people who listen to religious broadcasting and watch religious 
broadcasting, it became a very big issue with them, as you might guess.
  It was not until our bill was introduced, initially with about I 
think 65 cosponsors, which is not bad considering the fact that 
Congress was not in session, and we are now up to I think 120 
cosponsors for my legislation, and I will get into that a little bit 
later, but as the bill was introduced and it started drawing some 
attention throughout the country and I was inundated with phone calls 
and E-mails.
  I might point out that, Mr. Speaker, this is a compilation of all of 
the E-mails that I have received to date at least that are supportive 
of our legislation and are very concerned about the role of religious 
freedom and religious broadcasting freedom in this country.
  I think it is quite remarkable, I had exactly two folks give me E-
mails against the legislation. One of those opposed, and I quote, 
referred to ``superstitious nonsense,'' and then he put in parentheses 
``religion.'' So apparently at least one person opposed to our position 
considers religion ``superstitious nonsense.''
  I think that says a lot about where people are coming from in this 
country and the vast majority of Americans who have spoken loudly and 
clearly on this issue, so much so apparently that the FCC started to 
hear from people out there. They heard from Members of Congress, they 
heard about my bill, and, in a matter of a couple or three weeks, 
actually vacated that order by, in this case, a 4 to 1 vote.
  So the FCC basically I think realized they had erred, not only from a 
constitutional standpoint, but certainly a procedural standpoint, in 
changing the policy as it related to religious broadcasting, and 
thought perhaps that they would, by vacating the order, turn down the 
heat a little bit.
  Part of the reason I wanted to ask the opportunity to speak on the 
floor is to make certain that people understand that we are not going 
to let this issue die by any means, because there are some real issues 
at stake here, one of which is I wonder what is the real agenda for the 
FCC truly.

  As a matter of fact, the only Commissioner to vote against the 
reversal of the FCC decision, Commissioner Tristani, said in her 
dissent that she would continue to act as if the additional guidance 
were still in effect. Since it was duly overturned by the FCC as a 
commission, I would say that is quite an outrageous statement.
  She said, ``I, for one, will continue to cast my vote in accordance 
with the views expressed in the additional guidance.''
  So despite the fact that the Commission realized the error of its 
ways, at least one Commissioner has gone public in basically saying 
that she wants to make certain that the religious broadcasters have to 
jump through certain hoops to be able to have their license.
  That really raises a question, Mr. Speaker, as to if the FCC is 
talking about content, and they clearly are, and in their order, their 
initial order they said that you have to understand that part of your 
programming, half of your programming, has to be educational or 
cultural, and, by the way, religious services, for example, do not fall 
into that category.
  Now, for people who are shut-ins, who are unable to go to church on 
Sunday or any other time, to be able to see religious broadcasting on 
television is truly a lifeline for these people, and the majority 
initially of the FCC and Commissioner Tristani basically says that you 
could not be able to do that, and, by the way, somebody has to decide 
what that content is; somebody has to decide what educational and 
cultural requirements are met. That would be, of course, the FCC.

                              {time}  1700

  Well, that puts the FCC up against the First Amendment.
  There was a reason why the Founding Fathers created the First 
Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the very core of 
what it means to live in this country. It was not the Second Amendment, 
it was not the Eighth Amendment, this was the First Amendment. I think 
it is important that we stress that when we talk about this effort by 
the FCC.
  So despite the fact that they vacated the order, I am convinced that 
there is

[[Page H506]]

still an agenda over at the FCC and why it is important that we move 
forward with the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act that I have 
introduced, along with 120 other of my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to pay tribute to my original 
cosponsors, and two of them are here with us today and will be speaking 
momentarily, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and a member of the 
Committee on Commerce; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a 
leader in broadcasting issues throughout his career here in the 
Congress. They will both be speaking as well on this issue. I also want 
to pay tribute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), all 
initial sponsors of this bill, and ones who enjoined the Oxley 
Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act in response to their constituents 
calling and asking that they do so.
  Before I yield the floor, I would like to, if I can, Mr. Speaker, 
just quote from a few of the e-mails I have received from all over the 
country. I think it gives a little bit of flavor of where people are 
coming from on this issue. This one: ``Thanks for upholding the First 
Amendment.'' This one: ``You spoke to the millions of people all over 
this country who believe that the expressions of the churches and 
synagogues do indeed serve the needs of communities in this great 
country.'' Another one: ``So little is left on the air for families to 
sit down and watch together, and now the FCC wants to take that away as 
well. Your efforts and those of several others in Congress will go a 
long way to protect the freedoms we all enjoy and sometimes take for 
granted.'' Well spoken.
  Another: ``Those such as myself that are disabled and cannot attend 
church services rely on radio and television broadcasts. They are so 
very important.''
  Another one: ``What I find disturbing is the notion that this ruling 
opens the door for someone somewhere to make decisions about what is 
and what is not acceptable speech on religious topics. One man's 
proselytizing is another's evangelizing. How ironic that while those 
hostile to faith are madly trying to protect the right to express or 
view any vile thing on the Internet, they find this programming so 
offensive that they want to suppress it.''
  Americans can be remarkably prescient and articulate when they are 
offended by some of government's decisions.
  Another one: ``My mother, who is 87 years young, faithfully listens 
to the religious programs each day and every day, and this would have 
been a tremendous loss if they were deleted from the airwaves. 
Certainly, religious broadcasting serves to meet the educational, 
instructional and cultural needs of America. If we lose this freedom, 
what next?''
  Another one: ``In a land where we often hear of the need for 
tolerance, Christianity is being less and less tolerated. If society 
truly believed in tolerance, they would have to include tolerance for 
Christianity. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and 
government and that the government should not establish religion, but 
to me, that means the government should not be hostile to religion or 
do things to hinder the free exercise of religion. The recent actions 
of the FCC clearly were the government taking a prejudicial position 
against religion.''
  This final one: ``I am weary of the FCC thinking they have the 
authority to tax and change policy on a whim.''
  That gives my colleagues an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the support that 
people have given us out there, and I am sure that other Members have 
their own stories to tell as well.
  With that, let me recognize, in their order of appearance, the 
gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hall), who has been one of our 
stalwarts on the Committee on Commerce. This is a bipartisan effort, 
and I do want to recognize my friend from Texas for his remarks.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is good when one can make 
something happen that ought to happen, and that is exactly what the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others that he has given credit to, 
have done here.
  I rise as a cosponsor of the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act. It 
is a bill that, of course, will help ensure that freedom of religious 
broadcasting is not threatened by the whims of the government 
policy decisions. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) 
for his outstanding leadership on this, for his immediate leadership on 
it, and for his immediate action on it. I want to thank him for 
inviting me to be the lead Democrat on this, because I am honored to 
get to be.

  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), who wrote and signed a letter with me to the 
commission and, of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), 
who is always on the right side of most issues that I come in contact 
with him on as I serve on the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, in a recent ruling which was subsequently reversed in 
the wake of congressional and citizen opposition, the Federal 
Communications Commission stated that programming ``primarily devoted 
to religious exhortation, proselytizing or statements of personally-
held religious views and beliefs, generally would not qualify as 
`general education' programming.'' Now, the FCC also noted that church 
services normally would not qualify as general educational programs, so 
we can see where they are coming from.
  This ruling was issued, as the gentleman from Ohio has said, without 
the benefit of public hearing. It was issued without any benefit of 
public comment, and it was issued while Congress was in recess. 
Actually, I think it was sometime between Christmas and New Year's Day. 
It constituted what I consider is an outrageous infringement on 
constitutional guarantees of freedom of religious expression; and it 
threatened to set a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the 
narrowing of a definition of what is considered educational.
  Now, if that is going to be the subject of hearings, we want Congress 
to be in session. We want to have the right to introduce testimony. We 
want people to come from the far corners of this country that want to 
testify and have some input on what we consider is educational. We do 
not leave it up to a handful of people that are appointed and 
answerable to one person.
  Well, the FCC was dead wrong from both a procedural and a 
constitutional standpoint. They acknowledged that they had created a 
``widespread public confusion'' as a result of its ruling. At least 
they turned the table back, and at least they killed their ruling. Yet, 
we have not gone far enough. We have to pretty well put something in 
stone to give them some direction for the future. Now, that is what the 
gentleman's bill does.
  Religious groups and thousands of concerned citizens have joined all 
of these Members of Congress that the Chairman has talked about in 
expressing their strong opposition to this initial ruling. I am pleased 
that the FCC listened to the American people and listened to the 
gentleman, and I am pleased that they listened to Congress and quickly 
reversed their onerous decision. However, our efforts do not end here.
  We have to ensure that the FCC will follow its normal rulemaking 
procedures, which include taking public comment and listening to 
people; people having a chance to express themselves in the future. Mr. 
Speaker, H.R. 3525 will help ensure that such confusing policy 
decisions do not reoccur, and it will signal our support for continued 
freedom of religious broadcasting on our Nation's networks and support 
for the First Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Religious 
Broadcasting Freedom Act.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for 
his continuing leadership on this. It is now my pleasure to call upon 
our good colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the 
Committee on Commerce and a leader on many broadcast issues.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio. Like the 
gentleman from Texas, I compliment the Chairman for his bill.
  I say to my colleagues, if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) had 
not brought this bill and had not acted quickly, from the conservative 
ministry of James Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Ministry in Fort 
Lauderdale to the actual Christmas services of the Pope at the Vatican, 
we would not be

[[Page H507]]

able to have these televised. These are two dramatic examples of 
services that are carried that people listen to.
  So I think what we did in a larger sense is bring to bear the 
inadequacies of the FCC. He and I and others, including the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), are on a special task force to try and 
reform the FCC.
  So I am here to compliment the gentleman on what he did; but in a 
larger sense, this points to the need for reform. So in my comments 
this evening, I will be talking about that.
  The FCC's actions, defining and regulating noncommercial educational 
television stations, is something that we should be concerned about, 
because they met on December 28, I believe it was, December 28, right 
after Christmas, before New Year's, and issued an order. Now, normally 
when they issue an order, they have a hearing. They ask for comments. 
But for some reason, they decided to just go ahead and bring this up 
and issue an order, vacating ``the additional guidance.'' The 
underlying problem with the FCC in the first place is they should not 
have even done this without a hearing and having an opportunity for 
people to participate.
  So the gentleman's bill, H.R. 3525, the Religious Broadcasting 
Freedom Act, needs our support today. We should pass it on the House 
floor.
  Of course, my main point in addition to that is to reform and 
reauthorize this program to make their activities more clear to them. 
Three of the five FCC commissioners decided on this infamous date of 
December 28 last year that in order for noncommercial educational 
television to retain their licenses, they must devote 50 percent of 
their programming hours to shows that are educational and cultural and 
whose purpose is to meet the educational, instructional, and cultural 
needs of the community.
  In doing so, three of the five FCC commissioners placed the FCC in 
the position of reviewing and evaluating all religious programming by 
concluding, ``programming primarily devoted to religious education, 
proselytizing or statements of personally-held religious views and 
beliefs generally would not qualify, would not qualify as educational 
or cultural programming.''
  So basically they are saying that religion is not educational, it is 
not cultural; and as I said earlier, even the Christmas services at the 
Vatican by the Pope would not qualify under the FCC's ruling. Church 
services in themselves would not qualify. As most of us know, many of 
us on Sunday after church will even watch the television for additional 
services, and it is an inspiration for all of us.
  Fortunately, two of the commissioners at the FCC had the foresight 
and common sense to realize the ramifications of their decisions. As 
the two commissioners said, regulations like this ``may open a 
Pandora's box of problems that will create confusion and litigation.'' 
Simply put, the more the Commission attempts to generically define 
which educational, instructional, and cultural programming will count 
for regulatory purposes, the closer it will come to unacceptable 
content regulation. The order indicates that church services generally 
would not qualify as a general educational program. We ask, however, 
why such programming might not qualify as cultural programming, just as 
a presentation of an opera or any other types of things like that.
  So last month, they finally, I guess it was this month, they finally 
changed their decision, exercised some common sense, reversed all of 
their guidelines, and I think that is, I know it is because of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the bill which I cosponsored, an 
original cosponsor with others, and the fact that when he put it on the 
House floor, he got over 75 cosponsors. So I urge the leadership to 
send a message to the FCC that we just cannot have this kind of 
behavior from the FCC, and we need to recognize that this bill is 
important to pass and send a message to the FCC that they should not do 
this again.
  So this congressional scrutiny we had and this legislation has 
stopped the FCC dead in its tracks. They reversed themselves; and I 
think, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has pointed out, the e-
mails and all of the hundreds of letters that I have received, that he 
and other Members of Congress confirm the need for his bill.

                              {time}  1715

  So I urge my colleagues this evening to pass the Religious 
Broadcasting Freedom Act that he introduced. It will not only reverse 
the FCC regulations pertaining to noncommercial religious broadcasters, 
but also require public comments, just a simple thing, require public 
comments before handing down any future changes to noncommercial 
licensing regulations.
  This is extremely important, for there are still those at the FCC, 
judging from the comments of some of the commissioners after they 
reversed this, in which they said it was a sad and shameful day to 
reverse this decision. They said that the FCC capitulated to organized 
campaigns of distortion, and all we did is got on the House floor a 
couple of times, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) got all these 
cosponsors, and they accused us of distortion simply because we wanted 
to allow the idea of religious broadcasting to be cultural and 
educational; and we wish, after 30 years it has been on television, we 
wish that to continue.
  There are still many people, Mr. Speaker, at the FCC that want to go 
back and continue with the decision they did in the dead of the night 
December 28. Fortunately, they will not be able to do that. That is why 
I think it is extremely important that we continue our fight here on 
the House floor to continue to try and get this bill passed, because if 
we do not, from what I see from the FCC comments of those who dissented 
after they reversed their decision, they are still going to be working 
hard to change the size and scope of the programming in television.
  That is why I encourage in a larger sense this reform of the FCC, 
because they do not get the message. Without reform, and 
reauthorization with this reform, we will not be able to control this 
agency, control it in the sense that it better represents the citizens 
of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Oxley) for what he did for the betterment of this country, 
for television, and I think for the long-term survival of the country, 
that we can have and understand on television that religion is 
educational and it is part of our cultural heritage.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would again thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their 
strong leadership on this issue.
  In closing, I would only point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have had two 
discussions with the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), who is a cosponsor, and he has indicated his strong 
desire to move this bill through normal procedures and through the 
Committee on Commerce and on to the floor of the House. So we are 
pleased that we have a powerful ally in the majority leader, and he 
feels as we do, that we cannot let this issue die, but must move 
forward.
  We are indeed the duly-elected representatives of the people, not an 
independent agency. We make policy, they follow the policy. When they 
do not follow the policy, we make certain that the laws are clear as to 
how they will proceed.
  I again thank everyone for their attention and for their good work on 
this issue.

                          ____________________