[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1318-S1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 2215. A bill to clarify the treatment of nonprofit entities as 
noncommercial educational or public broadcast stations under the 
Communications Act of 1934; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


           noncommercial broadcasting eligibility act of 2000

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in late-December 1999, the Federal 
Communications Commission took the unusual and aggressive step to 
restrict the programming of noncommercial television stations by not 
allowing certain types of religious programming.
  Within the context of a license transfer involving a noncommercial 
television station in Pittsburgh, PA, the FCC attempted to establish 
guidelines for what they felt were ``acceptable'' educational religious 
programming.
  The commission states in the Additional Guidance section of their 
decision document that, ``. . . programming primarily devoted to 
religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally-held 
religious views or beliefs generally would not qualify as `general 
educational' programming.''
  As a former religious broadcaster, this type of misguided agenda 
coming from a nonelected agency of the federal government is very 
disturbing. My office was flooded with letters and phone calls from 
Arkansans who were worried that the Federal Government had finally made 
an overt attempt to restrict what religious programming we watch on 
television or listen to on the radio.
  Surprisingly, the national media remained strangely quiet despite the 
serious free speech implications and first amendment violation by the 
commission's ruling.
  Soon after the FCC's controversial decision, I sent a letter to 
Chairman Kennard, along with Senators Nickles, Helms, Enzi, and Inhofe, 
criticizing the commission's actions. Congressman Oxley introduced 
legislation in the House to address this issue.
  Although I am a cosponsor of Senator Brownback's companion bill to 
Congressman Oxley's bill, I do not believe this legislation to prevent 
future attempts by the FCC to restrict religious programming goes far 
enough.
  That is why I am introducing S. 2215, the ``Noncommercial 
Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000.''

[[Page S1319]]

  Simply put, my bill would effectively deny the FCC the ability to 
create new rules defining what is appropriate and eligible programming 
for noncommercial television and radio stations, while creating a 
``clear and simple test'' and guidance as to what programming 
noncommercial television and radio broadcasters may broadcast.
  This ``clear and simple test'' is based on the well-established 
guidelines from section 501(c)(3) and 513 (a) and (c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986.
  By requiring the FCC to look to the well-established guidance used by 
the Internal Revenue Service and the courts in defining what is 
``substantially related'' programming, my legislation gives 
noncommercial broadcasters the ability to broadcast programming that is 
``substantially related'' to their tax-exempt purpose, whether it be 
educational, religious, or charitable.
  It is clear that the FCC intended to restrict religious programming 
and may be inclined to do so in the future. The commission should not 
be allowed to circumvent the United States Constitution and pursue its 
own political agenda.
  Again, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000 will 
help prevent future misguided attempts by the FCC to limit our rights 
which are protected by the first amendment to the United States 
Constitution.
  I ask that my colleagues join me by cosponsoring this bill and making 
it clear that the Senate will not stand idly by as the FCC attempts to 
unilaterally decide what religious programming is in the public's best 
interest.
  I think it is outrageous for a nonelected agency to decide that a 
church service is not educational or that certain choral presentations 
do not fit their accepted definition of religious education. It is time 
that we draw the line. This legislation will do that. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in it.
                                 ______