[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11469-11489]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      NONCOMMERCIAL BROADCASTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 527 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 527

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4201) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the 
     service obligations of noncommercial educational broadcast 
     stations. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The amendment recommended by the Committee on Commerce now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Commerce; (2) a further amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record pursuant 
     to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by representative 
     Markey of Massachusetts or his designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 527 is a fair rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4201, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of 
Expression Act of 2000. H. Res. 527 provides 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Commerce.

[[Page 11470]]

  The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. In 
addition, the rule provides for the consideration of the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, printed in the Congressional Record, if 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) or his 
designee, which shall be considered as read, debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided between proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, like most Members, I have been contacted by a number of 
my constituents regarding the Federal Communication Commission's ruling 
on religious programming. By way of background, since 1952, the FCC has 
reserved a limited number of television channels for educational 
broadcasters, known as noncommercial education channels, provided that 
the nonprofit groups, including religious organizations, can show that 
they will devote more than half of their programming to general 
education purposes.
  However, in the December 29, 1999, ruling granting a noncommercial 
educational television station license, the FCC included a section on 
``additional guidance'' and ruled that programming largely ``devoted to 
religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held 
religious views and beliefs'' would not count as educational.
  I am disheartened that the FCC initially believed that religious 
programs do not serve the educational, instructional, and cultural 
needs of the community as defined by NCE regulations. I have no doubt 
that the millions of Americans who attend and watch church services 
find culture and education in the teachings of a sermon. I am pleased, 
however, that the FCC has since vacated its order.
  Despite the fact that the decision has been reversed, many Members 
did, I know, have concerns about the FCC's interpretation of the law in 
this matter. In addition, we are concerned that the FCC ruled without 
the benefit of public comment, taking unilateral action without 
consulting those who would be affected. Moreover, in clarifying NCE 
television rules, the FCC established a new benchmark for evaluating 
the content of religious broadcasts. In effect, the FCC created a 
precedent that could have required the FCC to monitor and evaluate 
religious programming and decide what is educational.
  Mr. Speaker, I find this course of action intrusive and question a 
decision that replaces programming decisions based on the community 
with FCC guidance.
  This is why we need to consider H.R. 4201 this morning. This bill 
ensures that the FCC does not engage in regulating the content of 
speech broadcast by noncommercial education stations, except by means 
of a formal agency rulemaking. This is responsible legislation that 
will answer the policy questions that arose following the FCC decision 
on this matter.
  Nonetheless, there is an amendment that deserves consideration of the 
House on the House floor. In the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) offered an amendment to amend the bill, 
and the rule we had before us will permit the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) the opportunity to offer his substitute 
amendment.
  I also want to applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the 
gentleman from Mississippi, my friend (Mr. Pickering), and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for the work on this legislation. I 
encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) 
for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a restrictive rule which 
will allow for the consideration of H.R. 4201.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), has 
explained, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to go 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Commerce.
  Under current rules, the Federal Communication Commission grants 
noncommercial broadcasting licenses for programming that is primarily 
educational in nature. This bill expands the qualifications to include 
cultural or religious programming.
  The bill also restricts the FCC's authority to establish requirements 
on programming by noncommercial broadcasters.
  The rule makes in order just one amendment that can be offered during 
floor consideration of the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would maintain an educational 
requirement to obtain a noncommercial broadcast license. No other 
amendments may be offered to the bill.
  I regret that the Committee on Rules approved such a restrictive 
rule. I see no reason why this bill cannot receive an open rule. Also, 
Members have not been given enough notice that the bill would be taken 
up on the House floor and that a restrictive rule was under 
consideration.
  However, because the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was 
the only Member testifying at yesterday's Committee on Rules hearing in 
support of an amendment and the rule does make in order that amendment, 
I will not oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers. If the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall) is prepared to yield back, I will yield back.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill to a large 
number of people in my district. I am a little surprised that it has 
come up so abruptly and then we had no time to prepare for it, but I 
want to register my strong support for the steps that are being taken 
by the Federal Communications Commission to make broadcasting 
available, the opportunity to broadcast to small and nonprofit groups.
  There is a whole array of groups beyond the obvious ones that are 
mentioned, the religious groups, educational groups that particularly 
want to push some aspect of education to the numerous ethnic and 
nationality groups in my district. There are a large number of people 
who are of Caribbean descent in my district and have had a great deal 
of problems with trying to get radio broadcasts which focus on their 
particular interests, Haitian, Jamaican, Canadian, and numerous others.
  I think it is very appropriate that we take a step in this direction 
and leave it as broad and open as possible, following the general 
approach of the Federal Communications Commission without any 
restrictions. Indeed, the restrictions have been too great all these 
years. The broadcasting is regulated by the Federal Government. It is a 
form of free speech; and because it is regulated by the Federal 
Government, I think efforts should have been made many years ago to 
make it freer.
  We have not had free speech using radio waves or free speech using 
television or any of the regulated broadcast bands that the Government 
is in control of.

                              {time}  1030

  The Government is in control, and that means that all of the people 
are in control; all the people should be served. It should not be a 
matter of those who have the necessary capital to be able to capitalize 
a radio or television station. We are talking primarily here about 
radio now, which is the simplest and the cheapest way to provide some 
means of broadcasting for people who do not have means.
  Certainly, if we are going to have freedom of speech, freedom of 
speech ought to mean that everybody has a chance to speak over the 
airwaves, especially if that is regulated by government. We have 
freedom of speech in

[[Page 11471]]

terms of printed matter, and anybody who can afford it can, of course, 
print matter. Of course the big newspaper chains and people that have 
money are able to take advantage of that even more so. But the 
Government does not regulate anybody out of the print business.
  If one has the money, if one has the wherewithal, one can get into 
the print business at one level or another. That may mean passing out 
pamphlets, it may mean finding a newspaper, or it may mean starting a 
magazine. But it is not so in the broadcast arena. One cannot, even if 
one has the wherewithal, enter the broadcast arena, because that is 
tightly regulated by the Government, more than it should have been all 
of these years.
  Mr. Speaker, we need more freedom and more opportunities, not fewer.
  So I wholeheartedly support the steps that are being taken by the 
Federal Communications Commission, and I think that any attempts to 
restrict it in any way are steps that are moving us backwards in the 
wrong direction. I think it is long overdue that we allow small groups 
to have their voice, and perhaps we should look at the bill and look at 
the regulations being proposed by the Federal Communications Commission 
and make them broader and more liberal. The range of areas that are 
covered by these nonprofit stations in many cases is too small, and we 
would like to see them broadened. We would like to see efforts made to 
make it even less costly to begin a nonprofit station.
  Full freedom of speech means that the freedom ought to be able to be 
a freedom that we can utilize over the free and regulated Federal 
airwaves.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to clarify some information for the gentleman 
from New York.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to clarify for my friend from 
New York that this is not the low-power FM bill dealing with the 
Commission's decision to authorize the expansion of radio broadcasting 
to FM low power. This bill merely deals with the noncommercial 
television and radio licenses that are already issued by the 
commission. There are about 800 to 1,000 radio licenses; and there are 
15 television licenses, eight more in the pipe, that are held by 
religious broadcasters. And the issue today that this rule authorizes 
the legislation on will be to limit the FCC's capacity to regulate the 
content of the religious broadcasting that goes on these noncommercial 
television and radio stations that are already on the air.
  So the gentleman's concern about the FM low-power issue is obviously 
a very important one, and we dealt with that issue I think several 
weeks ago. This is a separate issue dealing with religious radio and 
television broadcasting.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 527, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4201) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify 
the service obligations of noncommercial educational broadcast 
stations, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 527, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4201 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4201

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Noncommercial Broadcasting 
     Freedom of Expression Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In the additional guidance contained in the Federal 
     Communication Commission's memorandum opinion and order in 
     WQED Pittsburgh (FCC 99-393), adopted December 15, 1999, and 
     released December 29, 1999, the Commission attempted to 
     impose content-based programming requirements on 
     noncommercial educational television broadcasters without the 
     benefit of notice and comment in a rulemaking proceeding.
       (2) In doing so, the Commission did not adequately consider 
     the implications of its proposed guidelines on the rights of 
     such broadcasters under First Amendment and the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act.
       (3) Noncommercial educational broadcasters should be 
     responsible for using the station to primarily serve an 
     educational, instructional, or cultural purpose in its 
     community of license, and for making judgments about the 
     types of programming that serve those purposes.
       (4) The Commission should not engage in regulating the 
     content of speech broadcast by noncommercial educational 
     stations.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF SERVICE OBLIGATIONS OF NONCOMMERCIAL 
                   EDUCATIONAL OR PUBLIC BROADCAST STATIONS.

       Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(m) Service Conditions on Noncommercial Educational and 
     Public Broadcast Stations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A nonprofit organization or entity shall 
     be eligible to hold a noncommercial educational radio or 
     television license if the station is used primarily to 
     broadcast material that the organization or entity determines 
     serves an educational, instructional, or cultural purpose (or 
     any combination of such purposes) in the station's community 
     of license, unless that determination is arbitrary or 
     unreasonable.
       ``(2) Additional content-based requirements prohibited.--
     The Commission shall not--
       ``(A) impose or enforce any quantitative requirement on 
     noncommercial educational radio or television licenses based 
     on the number of hours of programming that serve educational, 
     instructional, or cultural purposes;
       ``(B) prevent religious programming, including religious 
     services, from being determined by an organization or entity 
     to serve an educational, instructional, or cultural purpose; 
     or
       ``(C) impose or enforce any other requirement on the 
     content of the programming broadcast by a licensee, 
     permittee, or applicant for a noncommercial educational radio 
     or television license that is not imposed and enforced on a 
     licensee, permittee, or applicant for a commercial radio or 
     television license, respectively.''.

     SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.

       (a) Limitation.--After the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall not establish, 
     expand, or otherwise modify requirements relating to the 
     service obligations of noncommercial educational radio or 
     television stations except by means of agency rulemaking 
     conducted in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and other applicable law (including the 
     amendment made by section 3).
       (b) Rulemaking Deadline.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall prescribe such revisions to its regulations 
     as may be necessary to comply with the amendment made by 
     section 3 within 270 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment recommended by the Committee 
on Commerce printed in the bill is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 4201, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 527, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 4201

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Noncommercial Broadcasting 
     Freedom of Expression Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In the additional guidance contained in the Federal 
     Communication Commission's memorandum opinion and order in 
     WQED Pittsburgh (FCC 99-393), adopted December 15, 1999, and 
     released December 29, 1999, the Commission attempted to 
     impose content-based programming requirements on 
     noncommercial educational television broadcasters without the 
     benefit of notice and comment in a rulemaking proceeding.
       (2) In doing so, the Commission did not adequately consider 
     the implications of its proposed guidelines on the rights of 
     such broadcasters under First Amendment and the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act.
       (3) Noncommercial educational broadcasters should be 
     responsible for using the station to primarily serve an 
     educational, instructional, cultural, or religious purpose in 
     its community of license, and for making judgments about the 
     types of programming that serve those purposes.
       (4) Religious programming contributes to serving the 
     educational and cultural needs of the public, and should be 
     treated by the Commission on a par with other educational and 
     cultural programming.

[[Page 11472]]

       (5) Because noncommercial broadcasters are not permitted to 
     sell air time, they should not be required to provide free 
     air time to commercial entities or political candidates.
       (6) The Commission should not engage in regulating the 
     content of speech broadcast by noncommercial educational 
     stations.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF SERVICE OBLIGATIONS OF NONCOMMERCIAL 
                   EDUCATIONAL OR PUBLIC BROADCAST STATIONS.

       (a) Service Conditions.--Section 309 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Service Conditions on Noncommercial Educational and 
     Public Broadcast Stations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A nonprofit organization shall be 
     eligible to hold a noncommercial educational radio or 
     television license if the station is used primarily to 
     broadcast material that the organization determines serves an 
     educational, instructional, cultural, or religious purpose 
     (or any combination of such purposes) in the station's 
     community of license, unless that determination is arbitrary 
     or unreasonable.
       ``(2) Additional content-based requirements prohibited.--
     The Commission shall not--
       ``(A) impose or enforce any quantitative requirement on 
     noncommercial educational radio or television licenses based 
     on the number of hours of programming that serve educational, 
     instructional, cultural, or religious purposes; or
       ``(B) impose or enforce any other requirement on the 
     content of the programming broadcast by a licensee, 
     permittee, or applicant for a noncommercial educational radio 
     or television license that is not imposed and enforced on a 
     licensee, permittee, or applicant for a commercial radio or 
     television license, respectively.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as affecting--
       ``(A) any obligation of noncommercial educational 
     television broadcast stations under the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a, 303b); or
       ``(B) the requirements of section 396, 399, 399A, and 399B 
     of this Act.''.
       (b) Political Broadcasting Exemption.--Section 312(a)(7) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 312(a)(7)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, other than a noncommercial 
     educational broadcast station,'' after ``use of a 
     broadcasting station''.
       (c) Audit of Compliance With Donor Privacy Protection 
     Requirements.--Section 396(l)(3)(B)(ii) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(l)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, and shall include a determination of the 
     compliance of the entity with the requirements of subsection 
     (k)(12)''; and
       (2) in subclause (II), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, except that such statement shall include a 
     statement regarding the extent of the compliance of the 
     entity with the requirements of subsection (k)(12)''.
       (d) Implementation.--Consistent with the requirements of 
     section 4 of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 
     shall amend sections 73.1930 through 73.1944 of its rules (47 
     C.F.R. 73.1930-73.1944) to provide that those sections do not 
     apply to noncommercial educational broadcast stations.

     SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.

       (a) Limitation.--After the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall not establish, 
     expand, or otherwise modify requirements relating to the 
     service obligations of noncommercial educational radio or 
     television stations except by means of agency rulemaking 
     conducted in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and other applicable law (including the 
     amendments made by section 3).
       (b) Rulemaking Deadline.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall prescribe such revisions to its regulations 
     as may be necessary to comply with the amendment made by 
     section 3 within 270 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After one hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider a further amendment printed 
in the Congressional Record, if offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) or his designee, which shall be considered 
read and shall be debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by 
a proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes of debate on 
the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4201, the Noncommercial Broadcast Freedom 
of Expression Act of 2000. While this is indeed a good bill, I am 
frankly disappointed that it is necessary. It is necessary to correct a 
gross blunder by the FCC and to prevent it from ever happening again.
  Earlier this year, in the WQED Pittsburgh station case, a television 
transfer case, the FCC sought to quantify the service obligations of 
noncommercial television licenses by requiring that ``more than half of 
the hours of programming aired on a reserved channel must serve an 
educational, instructional, or cultural purpose in the station's 
community of license.'' But they went on to say that while programming 
which teaches about religion would count toward that new benchmark, 
programming that was ``devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, 
or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs'' would 
not. In short, the Commission was drawing substantive distinctions 
between what religious message would qualify in the content of that 
station's broadcasting.
  Now, the FCC has licensed quite a number of religious broadcasters on 
the noncommercial airwaves of America. About 800 to 1,000 radio 
licenses are currently held and operated by religious broadcasters. 
There are 15 television stations operated by religious broadcasters as 
a noncommercial license. The FCC has never before now tried to regulate 
the content of those religious messages in religious broadcasting. But 
in this situation, the FCC tried to do so.
  I do not have to tell my colleagues that they were met with a huge 
outpouring of objections, not only from Members of Congress, but from 
people across America. Indeed, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and 
I, along with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns), and about 140 additional Members of the House, including, by 
the way, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) all joined 
forces against the commission's action.
  Fortunately, in response to the collective public outcry against 
these actions, the FCC wisely decided to vacate the additional 
guidance, these new instructions that they were issuing in this order, 
and they vacated that order by a vote of four to six.
  In other words, they back-peddled quickly. They quickly tried to undo 
the mistake they made. In fact, the concern that they might make that 
mistake again is, unfortunately still with us, because despite this 
four to one reversal, when we held a hearing at the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications of the Committee on Commerce, one of the 
commissioners, Commissioner Tristani asserted, and this is a quote, 
that she, ``for one, will continue to cast the vote in accordance with 
the views expressed in the additional guidance.'' In other words, there 
is still a sense that the commission, at least by some of the members 
of the FCC, that they would like to dictate the content of religious 
broadcasting in America.
  Mr. Speaker, imagine that. Federal bureaucrats telling us what we can 
and cannot hear on a religious broadcast station, what qualifies as a 
good message and what does not. Government telling religious 
broadcasters what they can and cannot say in a religious television or 
radio broadcast. What a horrible notion. And yet, at least one of our 
commissioners says, given the chance, she would do it again. Therefore, 
this bill becomes necessary.
  This bill, which we have constructed and passed out of the Committee 
on Commerce and brought to the floor today, H.R. 4201 authored by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) on behalf of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), myself, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), takes the 
appropriate stance against what the FCC tried to do. It basically 
codifies the old rule of the commission. The old rule of the 
commission, which basically is encapsulated in the commission's 
reversal, by which they reversed their bad decision, is as follows. 
This is what the Commission said when it finally backed up and 
corrected the bad mistake it made: ``In hindsight, we see the 
difficulty of minting clear definitional parameters for educational, 
instructional, or cultural programming. Therefore, we vacate our 
additional guidance. We will

[[Page 11473]]

defer to the editorial judgment of the licensee unless that judgment is 
arbitrary or unreasonable.''
  That has always been the standard. The commission has always left it 
up to the licensee to decide what messages were broadcast on these 
religious noncommercial airwaves. That has always been the rule; this 
bill codifies that rule. In fact, the bill says that from now on, the 
commission shall not have the authority to change it, to try to dictate 
the content of religious broadcasting.
  Now, in just a few minutes we will hear from my good friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and others about their 
objections to the bill. They come in two forms. One, they will argue 
that the bill broadens the eligibility standard for noncommercial 
educational licenses. That is not true. We simply codify the current 
standards. Under current standards, the FCC, licensing over 800 to 
1,000 radio stations and now, nearly 23 television stations, uses 
either a point system or a lottery system that has nothing to do with 
religious affiliation and simply awards these stations on that basis. 
Nothing we do changes that. But the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) will offer an amendment later to try to reinsert into the bill 
the capacity of the FCC to determine whether the station is educational 
enough; that is, again, to give it the right to get in and dictate what 
messages qualify, which do not; which religious messages are 
educational and which, in the opinion of the FCC, are not.
  For example, they could not tell us whether Handel's Messiah 
performing in the Kennedy Center would be educational; but it would not 
be educational on a religious broadcast station. We can see the 
difficulty and why this amendment needs to be defeated. It was defeated 
in the committee; it should be defeated on the floor.
  Finally, I want to point out that the bill does exactly what the 
Constitution says it ought to do when it comes to religion. It simply 
provides a no-nonsense statement that instructional, educational, 
cultural, and religious programming are treated exactly the same, no 
difference. No preference for religion, no penalties for religious 
broadcasting. In short, it literally abides by the Constitution, 
protects free speech, protects religious broadcasting from government 
interference. This is a good bill and we need to pass it, and we need 
to defeat the Markey amendment when it is offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin this debate by clarifying for anyone who 
may be listening what we are fighting about. In the United States, we 
have two types of television stations. We have commercial television 
stations. On commercial television stations people see the evening 
news, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Survivor, a whole host of programs 
which are basically commercial.
  Now, it is possible, and frequently it occurs, that individual 
religions purchase commercial TV stations because they want to use them 
as the vehicle by which they are able to communicate their message into 
a community. Those are commercial television stations.
  Then we have the other kind of television stations, public TV 
stations. Most often we consider them to be PBS. We turn to them, we 
actually consider them just to have a number, in Boston it is channel 
2, WGBH; and we have another smaller public television station as well. 
Those television stations are meant to serve the noncommercial, 
educational needs for the entire community. Commercial: Who Wants to Be 
a Millionaire, or any religion that wants to purchase a commercial 
station in order to advance the goals of that religion; noncommercial 
educational, a separate category, stations meant to serve the 
educational needs of the entire community.
  This is a debate over one of those noncommercial, educational 
television stations. And the story is one which really does not deal 
with whether or not religions can purchase commercial stations in order 
to advance their goals within a particular community; they may continue 
to do so. This debate is over whether or not if a religion gains 
control over a noncommercial educational station, whether or not that 
religion can use it in order to advance full time, all day long the 
goals of its own religion, and not serve the noncommercial educational 
needs of the entire community.

                              {time}  1045

  That is the debate in a nutshell, should we, in other words, continue 
to maintain the special purpose for which these noncommercial 
educational stations have always been reserved while allowing religions 
to run them if they want but under the guidelines that historically 
they have always had to maintain in order to ensure that the entire 
community is served.
  If we allow this wall to be broken down, then we are going to wind up 
in a situation where individual religions are able to move into 
community after community with populations that have very diverse 
religious backgrounds and to use one of these very small number of 
public TV stations in a community exclusively for the religious purpose 
of that one religion. I believe that that is very dangerous, very 
dangerous, especially since each one of these religions has the ability 
to buy a commercial TV station.
  Now, as we move forward in this debate, this very important debate, 
it is going to be critical for everyone to understand the historic 
nature of what we are talking about here today. If in any way there is 
a misunderstanding with regard to whether or not any of us believes 
there should be any restrictions placed upon the ability of religious 
broadcasters on commercial stations to, in fact, proselytize if they 
want, then they misunderstand the nature of what it is we are 
proposing.
  The essence of this debate is whether or not we want to continue to 
keep a distinction in place which separates public TV stations from 
commercial TV stations, commercial stations from noncommercial stations 
intended to educate the entire community.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate which, unfortunately, has developed 
connotations which do not accurately reflect the core of the debate, 
the issues that are at the essence of this controversy. Our hope is 
that, in the course of this couple of hours, that we are going to be 
able to explain the very real differences of opinion that exist here 
with the hope that we can maintain this wall that historically we have 
created between the State and the establishment of religion, which I am 
afraid is being broken down by the legislation which is on the floor 
here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the author of the legislation, who has 
done an enormously excellent job in bringing this bill through the 
committee and to the floor.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support and as a proud 
sponsor of this legislation. This is a critically important debate, as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) indicated. Whereas, 
usually we try to find common ground on the Committee on Commerce, and 
I have with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on many 
occasions found that common ground, but today we are debating something 
that gives us a fundamental disagreement or provides a fundamental 
disagreement.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts said the wall could be or will be or 
is being broken that separates church and State. He is correct. But it 
is not the breaking from the religious, but it is the heavy hand of 
government coming crashing down on that wall saying this is acceptable 
or this is unacceptable speech. It is the hand of the government coming 
in to regulate and to control and to set up a police of our speech, of 
our religious freedom and expression.
  It is a very critical issue. Are we going to maintain the current 
tradition of our religious liberties and expression? Make no mistake, 
this is not about changing our current practice at

[[Page 11474]]

the FCC. This is about something that the FCC did that changed, 
fundamentally changed, and set a new course and a new policy for how 
religious broadcastings and noncommercial licenses would be regulated, 
the guidelines for that.
  Let me read, this is from the FCC, ``This is unacceptable speech: 
Programming primarily devoted to religious exploitation, proselytizing, 
or statements or personally held religious views and beliefs.'' They 
went on to say, ``church services would not qualify.''
  So if Martin Luther King were alive today, and he were giving a 
speech or a sermon at a church, that would not be educational. It would 
not be cultural. It would provide no instructional benefit to any 
communities. That is the FCC's view.
  So if one is Catholic or one is Protestant or African American or 
serving a rural community or urban, and it is a church service where 
one has moral instruction, one has cultural benefit, where one has 
teachings of educational importance, under the FCC's view, no value.
  This is what the debate is about. Do we value the voice of the 
religious in the public square, or do we ban, do we exclude, or do we 
shovel them aside? Does it have value in our culture? Should they be in 
our public square?
  Let me read a quote that I think captures this debate. ``Americans 
feel that, instead of celebrating their love for God in public, they 
are being forced to hide their faith behind closed doors. That is 
wrong. Americans should never have to hide their faith. But some 
Americans have been denied the right to express their religion, and 
that has to stop. It is crucial that government does not dictate or 
demand specific religious views. But equally crucial that government 
does not prevent the expression of specific religious views.''
  The person who said those words was Bill Clinton at an address at 
James Madison High School in Vienna, Virginia. He was talking about 
this issue, does the religious voice have a place in our public square? 
He was making the case that it does. What is more public than our 
public spectrum, our licenses that the FCC gives, the greatest way to 
communicate on a broad basis.
  What does this legislation do and what does it not do? Now, if one 
was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) one 
would think that no religious institution has had one of these 
noncommercial educational licenses in the past, that they were reserved 
solely and strictly for educational institutions, for the CPB or the 
public stations.
  The reality is that we have had a tradition and a precedent and a 
practice of religious broadcasters holding these licenses. What we are 
doing is not changing current practice, current precedent. We are 
simply trying to prevent and prohibit the FCC from going down a 
dangerous path of regulating religious speech, religious expression.
  We have to do it because the FCC has tried to deem itself the holy 
trinity of the Constitution. They woke up one day and said, we can 
decide the establishment clause without a public comment or a public 
process, we can set a legislative policy that is reserved for this 
branch, not the executive branch.
  So they have decided that they are both the court, the Congress, the 
executive branch in one, and they try to do something that is 
fundamentally unfair in a closed process that fundamentally challenged 
our core beliefs of religious freedom and religious expression.
  What we are saying in this legislation today is not only, must one do 
everything in a public process, in a public fashion, in an open 
fashion, there will be no dark of nights but we are not going to allow 
one to undo the fundamental premises of our founding. We will not allow 
one to come in and regulate and control the religious speech and the 
religious beliefs of our people of this great Nation.
  What is at stake? Do we honor our heritage? Do we say that government 
has the right to discriminate against religion and control religious 
speech? Should it be free of government regulation? Is the religious 
voice valuable in the public square? Is there a place for the religious 
voice?
  With this debate, with these votes, we shall say that we will not 
have government intervention, interference, and regulation of the 
religious beliefs and religious views. We will find a value for the 
religious voice in the public square. We will protect that. We will not 
let the heavy hand of government come crashing down on the wall that 
separates and protects our people from an intrusive government.
  I ask my colleagues to continue to vote in support of what we are 
trying to do today.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just so it is very clear, if the bill being proposed 
today is adopted, there will no longer ever again be a requirement that 
a public television station must serve the educational needs of a 
community. They will not have that requirement any longer. It is gone. 
They can serve that community under this new bill as long as they are 
broadcasting religion all day long. They have fulfilled a requirement 
now under the new law. No education at all is required.
  So here is a public television station. It has been in a community 
for 50 years, it has served the educational needs of the entire 
community, everyone who lives within that 1 million, 2 million, 3 
million, 4 million person area, and all of a sudden it is now being run 
by a religion that has absolutely no responsibility to serve the 
educational needs of that community, none, zero, gone, do not have to 
ever again put on a single educational program. That is their new law.
  Now, how does that serve a community? Some religion comes in, it 
could be a cult by the way, some cult comes in and buys a noncommercial 
educational station and says we are not going to serve the local 
educational needs of the community any longer. We are just going to 
have our own little cult on this TV station. Under this law, that is 
legal. That is legal. One cannot say anything about it.
  The language in the bill says that, as long as one serves the 
religious purpose in a nonarbitrary or reasonable way, which the FCC 
would have to move in and challenge, then one is serving the entire 
community.
  Now, how can that be a good thing? How can it be a good thing for one 
religion to move in, a cult potentially, buy one or two public 
television stations in town, and just broadcast their religion all day 
long.
  Now, the only way in which that can be challenged is if the FCC, 
under their bill, the FCC comes in and determines that there is 
something wrong with this cult or that it is acting in an arbitrary or 
unreasonable way; that is this cult, this religion, that is now 
operating the public television station in town.
  Well, let us take it a step further. Let us say two religions come 
along, and each one of them wants to run this public television station 
in the town. Now, who determines who gets this public television 
station? Well, under the bill, the FCC has to determine which of the 
two religions is more religious. Which of the two religions has the 
better likelihood of serving one community on the public television 
station, on potentially the only public television station available in 
town.
  How can that be a good thing? How can we have the FCC in determining 
which religion is better, not based upon whether or not, by the way, 
they are going to serve the educational needs of the community, because 
there is no requirement, once this bill passes, that the educational 
needs of the community is served. They do not have to do it at all. 
They can, 100 percent of the time, just broadcast their religion, their 
cult potentially.
  The FCC determines which of the two religions or cults is the better 
religion or cult to be the only religion on the public television 
station in a community that had historically been served as a 
noncommercial educational station, serving the entire community for the 
last 30 or 40 or 50 years. This is not a good idea. This is not what we 
intended noncommercial educational, that is, public television 
stations, to play as a role in communities across this country.
  The deeper we get into this debate, the more troubling it becomes, 
because

[[Page 11475]]

it is very evident that, at the end of the day, there will be a small 
number of religions who will try their best to get ahold of these TV 
stations, these public TV stations, all across the country just to 
proselytize, just to run their religion into people's homes in these 
individual communities.
  Again, we have nothing against any religion purchasing a commercial 
television station. They can do so, and they do in every single 
community across this entire country. We have no problem with any 
individual sect running a noncommercial public television station as 
long as they fulfill the requirements that they serve the educational 
needs of every child, every child who lives within that area. Every 
child within a 2 million or 3 million person area is not going to be 
served by one religion broadcasting its religion into the minds of 
every child in that broadcasting area.

                              {time}  1100

  That is not an educational purpose, as far as most parents are going 
to be concerned. Most parents are not going to want the public 
television station in their community broadcasting one religion into 
the minds of their children all day long. If a religion wants to do 
that, they should purchase a commercial television station. If they 
want to purchase the public television station in town, they should be 
required to serve every single child.
  Now, some religions say by broadcasting their religion, even if 90 
percent of the community is not of that religion, that they are 
furthering the educational needs of that community. Well, I would 
contend and maintain that almost every parent is of the belief that 
their child is not going to be served by listening to one religion all 
day long on the public television station in their community. They are 
going to be of just the opposite opinion; that their child is being 
misserved; that their child should not be watching that TV station; 
that it is no longer an educational TV station but it is a religious 
broadcasting station which should be a commercial station.
  So in every one of our hometowns we have a public television station, 
and it has Sesame Street on it and it has all the rest of that 
programming that children across our country watch on an ongoing basis. 
Now, if this new law passes, and a particular religion gets access to 
one of these public TV stations, they do not have to put on anything 
except their own religion all day long. That cannot be a good idea. 
That is a complete perversion of the notion that was established 50 
years ago about having these public television stations, that are 
public parks, in essence. They are public parks that every child, every 
adult can go to. It is common ground. It is not offensive to anyone. It 
is programming that everyone feels that they are benefiting from, not 
just one sect, one sub part of a community.
  So, my colleagues, this bill takes the public parks that are the 
public television stations in our country and they turn them into 
private preserves of one religion, one sub part of the community. And 
if we want to play in that park, if we want to watch that public 
television station, we have to assume that our children or our families 
are going to be exposed continuously, 100 percent of the time, to the 
religious tenets of that one religion.
  Again, no one has any objection to any religion purchasing a 
commercial television station. They do so by the hundreds across the 
country. No one has any objection to a particular religion running a 
noncommercial television station, a public television station, as long 
as they abide by the rules that they are serving the entire community's 
educational needs, not religious needs. One religion should not be able 
to say, here is the religious programming that this one community needs 
and we are going to put it on 100 percent of the time on the 
educational television station in town. That is wrong, and that is why 
this legislation should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  My friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, made an interesting 
speech, but he has it all wrong. We are not talking about the Sesame 
Street stations. There are 800 to 1,000 noncommercial religious 
broadcasters today on the radio. There are 23, counting the television 
stations in the pipe, religious television broadcasters on television 
holding noncommercial television licenses. That is the current state of 
the law. We are not talking about anything different than what 
currently occurs.
  If those religious broadcasters were not qualified to hold those 
licenses, because they are producing religious programming, they would 
not hold them today. The FCC tried to take them away, in effect, by 
deciding they were going to decide what programming could be on those 
programs. They were going to decide what religious messages were going 
to be on all those stations. This bill prevents that.
  Secondly, let me point out that for years these stations have 
operated as religious broadcasters. The FCC has always considered that 
the religious messages they promote all day long are currently 
considered primarily educational. That is the current law. The bill 
incorporates the current law only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), who has been a leader in the fight to prevent the FCC from 
content regulation of religious broadcasting.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let us review a little bit of history. Back 
in December of last year, late December, between Christmas and New 
Year's, the FCC determined, in a rather ordinary license swap that goes 
on virtually every day, in this case a Pittsburgh license swap where 
the religious broadcasting was changing from a commercial to a 
noncommercial broadcasting license, the FCC determined at that date, 
when Congress was not in session, under what would be considered to be 
an ordinary license swap that the FCC would determine what would be 
educational, and they would determine whether, in fact, that particular 
broadcaster was broadcasting enough of what they would consider to be 
educational programming in nature. This was essentially a determination 
by the FCC what was educational or what was not, for the first time 
basically setting up the Government as the arbiter of what was to be 
considered educational broadcasting. It was a brazen attempt to force 
traditional religious programming off noncommercial channels.
  At that point, working with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), we all immediately wrote a letter to the 
FCC and then later introduced a bill, as soon as Congress returned, 
which overturned that directive. Religious viewers and listeners 
flooded Capitol Hill. I am sure many of the Members received phone 
calls and letters and faxes and E-mails regarding this outrageous 
decision by the FCC.
  Because of the public outcry, the FCC almost immediately then vacated 
the order that they had first introduced after our bill was put in the 
hopper. But ultimately they never acknowledged, that is the FCC 
majority, their procedural, legal, or constitutional errors. And let me 
point out that the original vote, with two strong dissents from 
Republican Members, was a 3 to 2 vote, basically ruling that the FCC 
had that ability to determine what was educational. They quickly 
retreated and that vote was a 4 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Tristani 
voting in the negative to vacate the ruling.
  But the interesting thing about the original decision and the 
vacation of the ruling was that the FCC never acknowledged their 
procedural, legal, or constitutional errors. They blamed the 
controversy on ``confusion over their intent.'' I do not think there 
was ever any confusion about what the intent of the majority was. One 
commissioner, Commissioner Tristani, even dissented from overturning 
the order, saying that she would continue to vote as if the original 
directive were still in place, and she, in fact, testified to that 
before the committee.
  Against this backdrop we worked together to craft a bill, which is 
now 4201, sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, which is on the 
floor today. It

[[Page 11476]]

would prevent the FCC from restricting religious content in the future 
by affirmatively stating that cultural and religious programming meet 
the educational mandate.
  Now, I assume my friend from Massachusetts probably supported the 
original decision by the FCC; and as a result, we are here today. Some 
public broadcasting stations are opposing the bill. I can only conclude 
that they do not want to share their free noncommercial spectrum with 
religious broadcasters. But let us make one thing clear. Public 
broadcasters do not have a special claim to noncommercial channels. 
Indeed, if they did, C-SPAN would not be on the air. Religious 
broadcasters and others have an equal right to hold such licenses.
  H.R. 4201 is a measured response to the effort to single out 
religious content for special scrutiny. The FCC has no business 
discriminating against faith-based programming. H.R. 4201 merely spells 
out that religious and cultural programming deserve the same treatment 
as educational and instructional programming. Nothing more and nothing 
less.
  Ultimately, the issue is about freedom of religious expression and, 
indeed, whether government can control content. That is the ultimate 
issue. And the Constitution is pretty clear on that; that government 
shall not determine content.
  Now, my friend from Massachusetts is worried about a cult getting a 
radio station. I would point out that the bill states that 
broadcasters' determinations that their programming serve as an 
educational, cultural, or religious purpose may not be arbitrary or 
unreasonable. So I would say the argument is fallacious.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bottom line on this bill is that under current law the FCC 
decides whether the programming is educational. That is their job: 
Does, in fact, the public TV station fulfill the educational 
requirement to serve the entire community. If we adopt this bill, the 
FCC will have to decide whether the programming is religious. That is 
its responsibility.
  Now, no one believes that it is the job of the FCC to make religious 
determinations, yet that is exactly what this legislation asks it to 
do. We will have turned the Federal Communication Commission into the 
faith-based content commission, all the time saying that they did not 
mean to. They did not mean to do that; they did not mean to have the 
FCC determining whether or not this public television station had 
served the religious needs of the community. But it will have to do 
that.
  If we support public television, we should vote against this bill. If 
we support keeping Federal bureaucrats out of religion, we should vote 
against this bill. But if we want the Federal Communications Commission 
deciding whether a broadcast applicant is sufficiently religious to 
qualify for a brand new licensing category, entitled ``primarily 
religious,'' then this bill is the right bill. This takes the public 
television stations across America and has the Federal Communication 
Commission determining whether or not they are primarily religious; 
that is, are they religious enough.
  Again, there is nothing wrong with some religion running a public 
television station. There is nothing wrong with them having a religious 
component. Much of what can be done with a public television station 
can include a lot of religious educational broadcasting. Educational. 
Not proselytizing, but educational. And that occurs today. It occurs 
today on a thousand radio stations across the country. It occurs on 
public television stations today that are being operated by individual 
religions, but it does not allow that religion to turn it into nothing 
more than a sanctuary for their own religion broadcasting 24 hours a 
day into the homes of every person that lives in that community.
  Now, just so it is clear, there are a lot of people that oppose this 
particular bill. The Interfaith Alliance opposes it, the National 
Council of Churches of Christ in the United States opposes it, the 
National Education Association opposes this bill, the National PTA, the 
prime supporters of public television in America, especially because of 
its children's television component, opposes it. The National PTA 
opposes this bill. The Unitarian Universalists Association of 
Congregations opposes this bill.
  This should send chills up the spine of any person that really does 
respect their own religion. Because rather than having a public 
television station in a community any longer serving the entire 
community, we are going to wind up with individual religions thinking 
that they can take one of the small number of public television 
stations in each community and just turning it into their own private 
preserve.
  Again, nothing wrong with information on a public television station 
that is educational when it relates to religion, but when it turns into 
something that is nothing more than a pulpit for one church, I think 
there are real problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I first yield myself 30 seconds to read my 
colleagues a list of associations in support of this legislation: The 
Christian Coalition; the American Family Association; Concerned Women 
for America; Family Research Council; Home School Legal Defense 
Association; American Association of Christian Schools; Justice 
Fellowship; Religious Freedom Coalition; Republican Jewish Coalition; 
Traditional Family Property, Inc.; Traditional Values Coalition; Vision 
America.
  There is huge support among the religious community for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment to our Constitution 
establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the 
press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of 
grievances.
  This debate combines two of our most precious freedoms, the freedom 
of speech and the freedom of religion. These freedoms are the core of 
the first amendment and the Bill of Rights.
  Do we really believe our Founding Fathers wanted the Federal 
Government to restrict or regulate free religious speech on our 
airwaves? This legislation will send a strong message to the FCC that 
they cannot and should not restrict free speech of religious 
broadcasters.
  The Federal power to issue licenses to regulate commerce is a 
powerful one. It should not be misused to restrict, control, or 
regulate our freedom to speak or worship as we see fit. There is 
nothing that teaches children more that something is irrelevant than to 
require something be completely ignored. To require silence teaches 
irrelevance. We might as well teach religious bigotry.
  The FCC tried once to restrict religious speech in the public square. 
This bill will make sure they will not do it again. Mr. Speaker, I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the legislation and reject the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), from the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very easy bill to understand. What the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to do is have a 
government-based content bill; and what we want to do is continue the 
status quo.
  Now, there are five FCC commissioners who decided this ultimately in 
a 4-1 decision. On the commission there are five commissioners. Two are 
Republicans, and three are Democrats. They voted 4-1 in favor of what 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has tried to do.
  So, in this case, two Democrats on the commission who have all the 
information that is necessary and understand it much better than the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), perhaps better than anyone 
else

[[Page 11477]]

here, voted with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). They felt 
the status quo and the precedent had been established and that they did 
not want to have government-based content.
  In my home State of Florida there are three stations, one out of Boca 
Raton, Ft. Pierce, and Jacksonville, 24-hour a day with religious 
broadcasting. More than 125 noncommercial television broadcasters would 
be forced to completely drop their programs.
  Under the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
it would be almost impossible for a broadcaster to walk this line 
created by his bill. In fact, we had a hearing. Ms. Tristani, who is 
one of the commissioners, was asked to actually tell us if she could 
determine what was educational and what was religious broadcasting. And 
she admitted she could not.
  In fact, I asked her during the hearing, would a TV show on 
collecting comic books or wrestling magazines be educational or not. 
She could not answer. Instructions on living with the Ten Commandments, 
is that religious or is that educational? Shows on collecting pet 
rocks. In all three cases, she had no idea whether that was educational 
or religious broadcasting. And that shows the confusion that people 
would have to culturally decide what is educational and what is 
religious broadcasting.
  Let me quote from Furchtgott-Roth, who is one of the commissioners. 
He said, ``The scariest moment, the most frightening moment, the most 
chilling moment'' in all of his tenure at the FCC is when his staff 
asked him if he wanted to review videotapes to make the decision 
whether it was educational or religious. And he went on to say, ``I 
will never support any move to have the Government in a position of 
deciding whether programming fits into any one pigeon hole or 
another.''
  So if my colleagues want more FCC regulation, then vote for the 
Markey amendment. If they believe in restricting, changing the 
precedent changing the status quo, then they should vote for the Markey 
amendment.
  I believe, actually, the Markey amendment is unconstitutional because 
it allows the Federal Government to scrutinize and grade the content of 
religious broadcasting. It would insert the word ``educational'' in 
front of ``religious broadcasting,'' which would give the FCC 
discretion to determine whether religious broadcasting is, in fact, 
educational.
  I think it creates a loophole for allowing the FCC to continue to 
regulate unabashedly in this country and avoids the original intent of 
H.R. 4201.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote no for the Markey amendment and yes 
for the Tauzin bill and understand that when they are voting for the 
Tauzin bill, they are voting for the present status quo, the tradition 
which has existed in this country for so many years.
  Many of us believe the FCC should be reformed. We do not have an FCC 
with the computer industry. With all the information we have coming to 
Americans today, up to 250 channels through direct satellite 
broadcasting, wireless, the Internet, cable, and all the myriad of new 
innovations that are coming, do we need the FCC standing in the gap and 
saying to Americans this is what they will watch and this is what they 
will not watch?
  In fact, we probably should go back to the licensing of educational 
broadcasting stations and reform that because of the information that 
is available.
  So I urge no on the Markey amendment and yes on the Tauzin.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my good friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for yielding me the time, and I hope the 
House has been listening to him.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want to start the religious wars, if 
they want to create all manner of trouble, if they want to put together 
a piece of legislation that is going to bring the Government into real 
conflict over religion, if they want to have a massive amount of 
trouble at some future time when the broadcasters and the people and 
the religious institutions in this country find out what we have done, 
then, by all means, vote for this legislation.
  First of all, this legislation is opposed by religious groups who are 
smart enough to know the evil that we are sowing amongst ourselves 
today. That includes the National Council of Churches of Christ in 
America and a large number of other religious institutions which know 
that they do not want Government in their business.
  Second of all, it is fully possible for a religious broadcaster to 
purchase a station which they can use for religious purposes in any 
fashion they want. It is also possible for them to bid on an 
educational station and to simply establish that they will provide good 
educational services in addition to religious services. They are doing 
that all over this country and are exercising that right. No one has 
been kicked off.
  The FCC, in its great folly, and I want to point out I was as 
critical of the FCC on that matter as was anybody else in this Chamber, 
has withdrawn the rather silly set of rules which they were proposing. 
So there is no threat to religion, no threat to religious broadcasters 
under practices as they exist today.
  Now, I would point out that what this does is to give essentially a 
situation to the American people in which, first of all, anybody who 
calls himself religious or a religious institution can proceed to go 
about getting one of these. And let us talk about who would receive 
special preference and special treatment under this.
  The World Church of the Creator, a White Supremist Institution; the 
Aum Supreme Truth, that is the institution which gassed the Japanese 
subways; the Branch Davidians and Mr. David Koresh; Heaven's Gate, 
where there were suicides in March of 1997 outside of San Diego; the 
People's Temple, run by Mr. Jim Jones, who poisoned people with Kool-
Aid. These are all subject to very special and preferential treatment 
under the legislation which is presented to us today.
  The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in 
Uganda, where, on March 17 of this year, some 1,000 people were killed. 
Charles Manson and family, who had a religious mission we are so told. 
Satanism would qualify because it is a religion. And witchcraft or the 
local coven could seek to get special preference under this.
  The result of this kind of situation is the FCC is shortly going to 
be compelled to come forward and to hold comparative proceedings 
between religious institutions. This is something which the FCC since 
its creation has prudently, carefully, wisely, and successfully 
avoided.
  The practical result of comparative proceedings between two religious 
groups or between a religious group and an educational group, without 
having clear definition of what the purposes of the legislation are or 
what must be the defined behavior of the applicant, is to create a 
massive opportunity for real religious difficulties and troubles which 
will come back to plague not only this Chamber but the people of the 
United States.
  I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), which will shortly be before us, is perhaps 
a way out of this thicket because it again restores the responsibility 
of the FCC to see to it that the judgment on channels which are now 
educational, and they are required under law to be educational but may 
also be religious, is the way to resolve the problem to keep the FCC 
and this Congress and this Government out of the business of making 
selections with regard to whose religion will receive a preference in 
terms of receiving a license to broadcast on airwaves which are a 
public trust.
  If we want to get away from that, then vote for the bill and vote 
against the Markey amendment; and we are going to have all kinds of 
trouble, and there are going to be lots of red faces around this place; 
and lots of people who are going to be trying to lie out of what it was 
they did at some prior time.
  Now, I repeat, I am no defender of the FCC. I have gone after them 
harder

[[Page 11478]]

than anybody else in this institution and with excellent good reason. 
And I think their original judgment in this matter was wrong. But they 
have withdrawn that and that issue is no longer.
  I would observe that to do what we are doing here is no correction of 
anything which is wrong in broadcasting. Religion broadcasters can now 
broadcast under full license of the FCC. There are no end of religious 
broadcasters who are running religious and educational stations who 
have gotten the right to do that under the regular practices now in 
force. There is no reason to change that. And they broadcast both 
educational, they broadcast cultural things, like music. And they also 
broadcast religion, something which I applaud.
  There is no threat to religious broadcasting in this country at this 
time. The FCC has withdrawn anything which offered any peril to 
religion broadcasters and to the use of our airwaves for religious 
purposes. But to take this legislation and to put the FCC in a position 
of having comparative hearings over the question of who is going to 
broadcast should gray the hair of anybody in this Chamber.
  I urge colleagues to vote against the bill, vote for the Markey 
amendment, and to support the views that are held and brought forward 
by responsible religious groups and religious broadcasters.
  H.R. 4201 purports to correct a particularly unwise decision made by 
the Federal Communications Commission last year. As many Members are 
aware, I am not generally known to be a great fan of the FCC. It is an 
agency that often blunders badly, and this mistake was certainly no 
exception. However, what makes this FCC foul-up unusual is that the 
Commission admitted its error and quickly corrected it.
  So why is this bill before us? The sponsors say that legislation is 
needed to make sure the FCC does not make the same mistake again down 
the road. Ordinarily, I would agree. A prophylactic measure often is 
called for when dealing with an agency--like the FCC--that seems to 
take great sport in pushing the limits of its authority on a regular 
basis.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us is not a simple prophylactic 
measure. It goes well beyond its stated purpose. In fact, it could not 
be clearer from the text that its drafters intend to fundamentally 
change the character of public broadcasting in this country.
  For nearly 50 years the government has set aside specially reserved 
radio and television channels for public, noncommercial use. These 
channels are available to qualified organizations free of charge, with 
a catch. The catch is that these groups must have an educational 
mission, and must broadcast some educational programming.
  This bill would change all that. It would actually abolish the 
educational requirement for public television programs. The bill's 
sponsors seem to think that promoting education is too much to ask of 
groups that receive this special license.
  The fact is that the majority of Americans support public 
broadcasting as we know it today. An even greater number believe that 
education should be among the nation's top priorities. This bill 
manages to eviscerate not one, but both of these important American 
values in one fell swoop.
  The bill suffers additional infirmities. It contains no definition of 
``nonprofit organization'' or ``religious broadcasting'' to help 
determine who is eligible to receive this special license. As a result, 
any religious extremist or cult group would be eligible for a 
noncommercial license--at the expense of the American taxpayer--and 
program anything it sees fit, whether educational or not.
  Hate speech, religious bigotry, and doomsday prophesies are all fair 
game, so long as the group asserts a ``religious purpose.'' Parents who 
today rely on public television as a safe haven for their children may 
have nowhere to turn if this bill is enacted. Sesame Street and Mr. 
Rogers' Neighborhood could be displaced by programming produced by cult 
leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh--each of whom would have been 
eligible to receive a specially reserved television channel under this 
bill.
  The Markey amendment, which will be offered later, is an extremely 
simple, but significant, improvement to this legislation that I 
support. I would note a particular oddity in the underlying bill. While 
it eliminates the educational requirement for public broadcasting, the 
drafters still use the term ``noncommercial educational license'' 
throughout the text. The Markey amendment would simply restore proper 
meaning to this term by requiring an educational commitment of all 
public broadcasters--religious or secular--who hold this special 
license.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment and oppose H.R. 
4201 as reported.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the 
Record.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill creates a requirement on the 
commission to do comparative hearings to decide which religious 
broadcaster get a station. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The current law which is incorporated in this bill has a four-point 
system that is purely sectarian, has no religious connotations at all. 
It deals with diversity, statewide networks, technical parameters, and 
establishes local entity points that are awarded to the winner of these 
licenses, totally no connection at all to whether or not this entity is 
religious.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall), who is in support of the legislation.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act. It is a bill, as 
has been said here many times, that will ensure that Americans are 
going to continue to enjoy the broadcasting of church services and 
other religious programming that is on our Nation's broadcast channels. 
I have high regard for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who 
just spoke. He named off a group of people that really should not have 
had access to the channels. They did have. But of the 12 the Master 
picked, one of them was bad, that was Judas, and that is about the only 
one most people can name.
  This is a bill that would preserve the freedom of religion and 
religious expression, and I think prevents the FCC from regulating the 
content like they did some time back.
  H.R. 4201 is an outgrowth of a decision by the FCC that would have 
restricted religious broadcasting on television. This action, and I 
think it was done without the benefit of any public comment or any 
congressional input, I believe it was done December 28 or 29 when 
Congress was not even in session and Congress was not even in town, 
would have forced some religious television broadcasters to either 
alter their programming or risk losing their licenses. The FCC ruling 
was wrong from both a procedural and a constitutional standpoint. It 
would have set a dangerous precedent that would have suppressed 
religious broadcasting and narrowed the definition of what is 
considered educational.
  In response to this ruling, several of us got together and thousands 
of Americans in protesting the action of the FCC and called for an 
immediate reversal of this ruling. Now, something happened after we 
made that calling and that insistence. The gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Pickering) was among those, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), 
and others of us. The FCC backed down on it. And unless they were 
definitely and totally wrong not only in their action but in how they 
took that action, they would not have taken that backward step. I also 
joined several of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Oxley bill, the 
Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act, which could have required the FCC 
to follow established agency rule-making procedures.
  H.R. 4201 is an outgrowth of these efforts and goes a step further by 
making it a little bit easier for religious broadcasters to obtain 
noncommercial educational broadcast licenses. I am pleased to join the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and others on both sides of 
the aisle as a cosponsor of this important legislation.
  In closing, we need this bill to ensure that there will be no erosion 
of freedom of religious programming in America. Mr. Speaker, we need 
this bill to ensure that Americans will continue to enjoy the religious 
broadcasting that they have come to depend upon. And we need this bill 
to ensure that the Federal Government does not become involved in 
regulating content of our broadcast programming.

[[Page 11479]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold freedom of expression by 
voting in support of H.R. 4201 as it is now written.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in 
conclusion on this portion of the debate.
  The gentleman from Louisiana contends that there will be no 
comparative test that has to be put in place by the Federal 
Communications Commission in order to determine which one of two 
religions is better qualified for the maintenance of a particular 
public television station in a particular community. But the reality is 
that once his language is adopted, once a television station, a public 
television station, can be primarily religious, then necessarily that 
test is incorporated into the historical set of criteria which must be 
looked at by the Federal Communications Commission to determine which 
potential applicant is more qualified to operate a public television 
station in a particular community.
  In other words, Federal Communications Commission which historically 
has meant Federal Communications Commission, will be changed from FCC, 
Federal Communications Commission to FCC, Faith Content Commission. The 
FCC will have to determine which of the two religions is better 
qualified to run a public television station.
  Now, do we really want the FCC to be in the business of determining 
which religion is better qualified, which one is more primarily 
religious in its operation of a public television station? I do not 
think we really want that. I think that the historical standard of 
which of the applicants will better serve the educational needs of a 
community is the standard which we should maintain, it has served our 
country well, and it is one which I believe once the debate moves to 
the Markey amendment will be better understood by all who are watching 
it, and ultimately I think, hopefully, supported so that we can 
maintain that status which has served our country so well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a member of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I agree with essentially all of the arguments 
that were advanced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) just now in opposition to 
this bill because everything that they said makes sense. We ought not 
to have the FCC become the Faith-based Content Commission. The reason 
we are here on the floor is that that is exactly what the FCC tried to 
do.
  Six months ago, the FCC ruled that church services would not qualify 
as general education programming. Six months ago, the FCC ruled that 
the broadcast of religious views would not constitute educational 
programming. The FCC ruled that the broadcast of religious beliefs 
would not qualify as educational programming. The FCC put this out in 
the form of a rule. They, not the Congress, put the word ``religion'' 
into the test for whether or not you could get a broadcast license. And 
so this legislation is necessary to take away that discretion. So much 
for the arguments made by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The gentleman from Michigan then says, ``Well, it's not necessary to 
be here on the floor because the FCC has withdrawn their stupid rule,'' 
and many of the minority who spoke against this bill called the FCC's 
action stupid. It was withdrawn, they said, because the FCC should not 
have ventured into this area. This legislation is necessary to take 
away power that the FCC apparently thinks it has, but no one in the 
majority or the minority wishes them to have, to adopt such a 
significant policy change as they attempted to do here to take 
religious broadcasting off the air without any public notice or input.
  We should vote for this legislation for this reason. Here is what it 
says: The Commission should not engage in regulating the content of 
speech. That is what this is all about. Vote aye.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4201, the Non-
Commercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act. This legislation 
eliminates the educational requirement from non-commercial public radio 
and television stations that receive free spectrum. This program was 
created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nearly fifty 
years ago to serve the needs of our communities and provide educational 
programming to all of our families. I simply cannot watch this scarce 
and valuable resource be endangered by this bill. Pressure for spectrum 
is more intense than ever. I believe it is important to maintain the 
longstanding commitment to programs of broad public educational 
content.
  As it stands, religious broadcasters are currently eligible for a 
license for non-commercial educational (NCE) broadcast television 
channels if they can demonstrate that their programming will be 
``primarily educational'' in nature. H.R. 4201 eliminates the 
requirement that programming have an educational content.
  This bill would set the stage for unwelcome government interference 
into religion. It would place the FCC in the untenable position of 
picking between competing claims of various denominations and 
religions--a dangerous precedent in which the government would be 
expressing a preference of one religion over another. With this 
legislation, the FCC would be forced into a position in which it must 
choose between two opposing religious groups that are competing for the 
same license. This is in clear violation of the First Amendment. 
Moreover, the elimination of the educational requirement opens the door 
to allow any fringe group in America to qualify for a free broadcast 
license.
  Some have said that the Non-Commercial Broadcasting Freedom of 
Expression Act was spurred on by a misguided ruling on the part of the 
FCC this past December. The FCC approved Cornerstone TeleVision Inc.'s 
application for an NCE license with ``additional guidance'' intended to 
clarify the current standards and stating that at least one-half of 
Cornerstone's broadcasting needed to meet an educational purpose. The 
FCC also offered guidance as to what constituted educational 
programming. After a great deal of criticism from across the political 
spectrum for the undue meddling of the FCC, the agency rescinded the 
``additional guidance'' section of the license approval offer. The 
problem had been solved. Yet, this legislation, which aims to prevent 
undue government interference in the future, creates a new problem as 
the FCC determines which religious organizations warrant a license and 
which do not.
  Mr. Speaker, the whole proposition raises many troubling questions 
which leaves me convinced we are better off under present law. I fully 
support religious organizations being eligible to apply for and receive 
non-commercial broadcast licenses as prescribed under current statute. 
Many of these organizations are already broadcasting educational 
programming successfully and adding to our greater understanding of 
faith and religion. The goal here is to preserve the integrity of a 
program that brought our children high quality shows such as Sesame 
Street and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. At its very core, public 
broadcasting was meant to have an educational purpose. To eliminate 
that provision is to place this entire program at risk.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking my colleagues from 
the Commerce Committee, Subcommittee Chairmen Tauzin and Oxley as well 
as Chip Pickering, for their hard work on this important issue.
  Last December, while we were all back in our Districts for the 
holidays, the FCC attempted to get into the business of determining 
acceptable programming for public broadcasters.
  Included a decision regarding a specific radio station in Pittsburgh, 
the FCC created ``additional guidelines'' that could have had sweeping 
changes to the way many broadcasters operate.

[[Page 11480]]

  The FCC tried to claim that the changes were simple clarifications.
  Further, the FCC also tried to make these changes without appropriate 
notice and comment.
  The fact is that some in the FCC wanted to make the statement that 
religious expression is not educational and thus calling into question 
the noncommercial broadcast licenses held by religious organizations.
  The truth of the matter is that these changes were more than 
clarifications. Beyond bad policy, the FCC's failure to allow the 
general public a chance to comment is equally harmful.
  And criticism of these changes was universal. In fact, the outrage 
was so overwhelming that FCC rescinded their order in twenty-nine days. 
The FCC knew it was in the wrong and quickly tried to get out of the 
mess.
  But what happens if in the future the FCC tries the same thing? What 
happens if instead of an explicit policy, the proposed additional 
guidance is implicitly used by staff behind closed doors?
  It is now up to Congress to make sure something like this doesn't 
happen again. We have a responsibility to prevent the FCC from making 
content regulations for religious broadcasters using our nation's 
airwaves. We can achieve this today by passing H.R. 4201.
  We are here not because the Federal Communications Commission simply 
made a mistake. We are here to make it abundantly clear that the FCC 
shall not have authority to impose such requirements now, or in the 
future.
  Congress must act now and H.R. 4201 is the right legislation. I urge 
all Members to support this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Markey:

                               H.R. 4201

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Noncommercial Broadcasting 
     Freedom of Expression Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF SERVICE OBLIGATIONS OF NONCOMMERCIAL 
                   EDUCATIONAL OR PUBLIC BROADCAST STATIONS.

       (a) Service Conditions.--Section 309 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Service Conditions on Noncommercial Educational and 
     Public Broadcast Stations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A nonprofit educational organization 
     shall be eligible to hold a noncommercial educational radio 
     or television license if the station is used primarily to 
     broadcast material that the organization determines serves an 
     educational, instructional, cultural, or educational 
     religious purpose (or any combination of such purposes) in 
     the station's community of license, unless that determination 
     is arbitrary or unreasonable.
       ``(2) Additional content-based requirements prohibited.--
     The Commission shall not--
       ``(A) impose or enforce any quantitative requirement on 
     noncommercial educational radio or television licenses based 
     on the number of hours of programming that serve educational, 
     instructional, cultural, or religious purposes; or
       ``(B) impose or enforce any other requirement on the 
     content of the programming broadcast by a licensee, 
     permittee, or applicant for a noncommercial educational radio 
     or television license that is not imposed and enforced on a 
     licensee, permittee, or applicant for a commercial radio or 
     television license, respectively.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as affecting--
       ``(A) any obligation of noncommercial educational 
     television broadcast stations under the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a, 303b); or
       ``(B) the requirements of section 396, 399, 399A, and 399B 
     of this Act.''.
       (b) Political Broadcasting Exemption.--Section 312(a)(7) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 312(a)(7)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, other than a noncommercial 
     educational broadcast station,'' after ``use of a 
     broadcasting station''.
       (c) Audit of Compliance With Donor Privacy Protection 
     Requirements.--Section 396(l)(3)(B)(ii) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(l)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, and shall include a determination of the 
     compliance of the entity with the requirements of subsection 
     (k)(12)''; and
       (2) in subclause (II), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, except that such statement shall include a 
     statement regarding the extent of the compliance of the 
     entity with the requirements of subsection (k)(12)''.
       (d) Implementation.--Consistent with the requirements of 
     section 3 of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 
     shall amend sections 73.1930 through 73.1944 of its rules (47 
     C.F.R. 73.1930-73.1944) to provide that those sections do not 
     apply to noncommercial educational broadcast stations.

     SEC. 3. RULEMAKING.

       (a) Limitation.--After the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall not establish, 
     expand, or otherwise modify requirements relating to the 
     service obligations of noncommercial educational radio or 
     television stations except by means of agency rulemaking 
     conducted in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and other applicable law (including the 
     amendments made by section 2).
       (b) Rulemaking Deadline.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall prescribe such revisions to its regulations 
     as may be necessary to comply with the amendment made by 
     section 2 within 270 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This amendment is very straightforward and very simple. It restores the 
word ``educational'' in two key areas. First, in establishing 
eligibility to obtain a noncommercial educational license, a public TV 
station, it stipulates that one must not merely be any nonprofit 
organization but rather a nonprofit educational organization.
  Secondly, it restores the educational basis for the programming by 
adding the word ``educational'' before the word ``religious'' in the 
underlying legislation.
  The point here is that noncommercial educational licenses should have 
an educational basis. If we do not pass the Markey substitute, the 
underlying bill has the effect of gutting the educational basis for 
public television because it would permit religious programming to 
qualify for such licenses 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  Now, many of us would be very happy to have religious organizations 
broadcast in our communities, and many do so today under commercial 
licenses. A few also do so on noncommercial educational licenses, yet 
adhering to the educational requirements that such licenses hold. 
Nothing in this amendment would prevent religious programming. It 
simply states that in order to have a public TV license, a 
noncommercial educational license, you must be primarily educational in 
your programming.
  I know that we have a difference of interpretation of what the 
sponsors of the bill believe their bill does. The sponsors believe that 
their bill does not change the eligibility requirements and operational 
requirements of noncommercial educational licenses, that is, public TV 
stations across the country. I continue to believe that the deletion of 
the word ``educational'' from the eligibility requirements so that 
noncommercial educational licenses are able to be licensed to any 
nonprofit organization as well as the inclusion of the word 
``religious'' as a category of broadcast material for which these 
licensees must primarily serve their communities is a fundamental 
change.
  The FCC has indicated that some religious programming will certainly 
qualify as educational. It always has. But we must remember that we 
have set these broadcast licenses aside to serve the community with 
educational programming. We have exempted these licenses from the 
auction process.
  Again, that is not to say religious organizations cannot be 
noncommercial educational licensees. Many already hold such licenses 
under the current licensing regime. The only question is whether we are 
going to change the nature of the trusteeship of the public's spectrum. 
Again, these are our public

[[Page 11481]]

airwaves. We ought to ensure that these licenses that have been 
specifically set aside to serve the community, the entire community, 
with educational, noncommercial programming serves to the maximum 
extent possible the educational needs of the whole community. Religious 
organizations can certainly fulfill that role. We welcome them in that 
role. But we do not have to change the eligibility and operational 
requirements for them to effectively participate.
  Again, I believe that we tread on very dangerous ground where 
sectarian messages intended for the followers of a particular religion 
are licensed to displace nonsectarian educational messages intended for 
the entire community. Again, I believe we go too far where the 
government favors religious messages by specifically blessing them by 
exempting them from spectrum auctions.
  My amendment simply restores the educational focus for these 
licenses, and I hope that the House supports it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say the gentleman from Massachusetts' 
amendment is not simple at all. It is not simple at all. By reinserting 
the word ``educational'' in front of the word ``religious,'' what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is doing is giving the FCC the authority 
to decide which religious programming is educational enough according 
to their standards. That is precisely what they tried to do in 
December. It is precisely the wrong, stupid action they took in 
December that even my colleagues on the other side have condemned as 
stupid and for which they turned around with a 4-to-1 vote and reversed 
themselves. This amendment would give them the power to do it again. 
And at least one of the commissioners said, given the chance, she will 
do it again, she will put the commission in the business of deciding 
which religious program, which religious message is educational enough 
to satisfy a Federal bureaucrat.

                              {time}  1145

  If it is not, the license can get pulled. Would that not be wonderful 
in America? Would we not be really blessed to have this amendment in 
the law, to give five federally appointed bureaucrats the right to say 
which religious messages are okay on these noncommercial stations and 
which are not?
  Now, the gentleman will make us believe that there are only a few of 
these stations, just a little rare exception somewhere. My friends, 
there are 800 to 1,000 religious radio broadcasters holding 
noncommercial licenses today in radio. All across America, there are 
religious organizations and family groups who have religious 
programming on these stations, and nobody until December, nobody in 
Washington had the nerve, had the audacity under our Constitution to 
suggest that they knew better than those programmers what was good 
religious programming, what was educational enough to satisfy the 
bureaucrats up here in Washington.
  Like bureaucrats in Washington know the value of religion in our 
homes and in our communities. Let me tell you where these stations are, 
they are across America. There are 23 religious television stations in 
America, 23, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
not just a few.
  There is one, for example, in Takoma, Washington, the Korean American 
Missions Incorporated. There is one in San Antonio, Texas, the Hispanic 
Community Educational TV, Incorporated. There is one in West Milford, 
New Jersey, Family Stations of New Jersey, Incorporated; The Word of 
God Fellowship in Denver, Colorado. They are across America.
  There are stations that own these noncommercial licenses and do 
religious broadcasting for the good of this country and the good of 
families all over America; and the bureaucrats in Washington would like 
the right to put them off the air because their religious views are not 
educational enough to satisfy whatever the standards of five 
commissioners sitting at the FCC are.
  For heaven's sake, do we really want to give them that power? If we 
really do, adopt this amendment; that is what it does. If we want to 
take the power away from the FCC to decide whether a religious message 
or program or religious church service is educational enough to meet 
these standards, whatever they are, then vote for this bill; that is 
all it does.
  It simply says for the future the FCC can no longer try to do the 
stupid thing they tried to do in December and the thing they would be 
allowed to do if the Markey amendment is adopted. We need to defeat 
this amendment and pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Markey amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The bill we are voting on 
today is quite simply an overreaction. The FCC attempted to clarify a 
rule. It then made a controversial decision and subsequently withdrew 
it, as they should have.
  Today, my Republican friends at the behest of conservative religious 
groups are seeking to make sure that the FCC can never again venture 
into this area. They are seeking to use the power of the Congress to 
write a statute that fences the FCC off from this area.
  Now, some may think this is the way that the Congress should spend 
its time. I think the FCC acknowledged that it made the mistake that it 
did; but it is overreaction, because the bill goes even beyond 
overreaction.
  The bill is showpiece legislation for religious groups in my view. It 
is unnecessary. It is very, very poorly drafted, and it creates a bad 
precedent; but these are not criteria which exclude us from considering 
it. It goes beyond that.
  The bill contains a very dangerous constitutional flaw. It opens the 
door for religions to qualify for a free noncommercial educational 
license provided at taxpayer expense.
  We should strike that portion of the bill, by at least passing this 
amendment. Without this amendment, in my view, the legislation makes 
clear that the majority intends to change the fundamental nature of 
public broadcasting in America.
  No longer will anyone have to prove their educational mission to 
obtain an educational noncommercial television license.
  That standard will be changed. It will be relaxed to require only 
that a religious purpose exists. And how will the FCC define that 
religious purpose? It cannot; because the Government really has no 
business defining it. Therefore, anyone calling itself a religion can 
qualify; anyone including cults and charlatans that have called 
themselves prophets and even some that spread hate in our country, 
people like David Koresh, and Jim Jones others.
  I do not think the Congress wants that. I do not think the country 
wants that. Mr. Speaker, without this amendment, the bill will present 
the FCC with the choice of choosing between religious groups. On its 
face it presents an unconstitutional predicament for the FCC.
  In practice, it will allow potentially anyone to qualify for this 
free license. I appreciate the intent of those that support this bill. 
Many Members on the Committee on Commerce expressed what I think were 
somewhat sincere views. Protecting religious expression is not only a 
worthwhile objective for this Congress, it is our duty.
  Remember the oath that we all took, when we were sworn in. Mr. 
Speaker, we should pass this amendment, if we do not, we will be 
passing legislation that will be overturned as unconstitutional. And 
more importantly, if we do not, we are providing television time and 
taxpayer money to underwrite religion. This is a slippery slope of 
government sponsorship of religion itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this amendment. It makes sense. It is 
good for the country. We do not need to be taking up the time of the 
Court to strike down the unconstitutional work of the Congress.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

[[Page 11482]]

  Mr. Speaker, again, to correct the Record, without the Markey 
amendment, the legislation, standing as it is, does not create any new 
standards to judge these licenses. The legislation codifies the words 
and the status quo, the old standard, the commission always used until 
December. It simply says that they will yield to the discretion of the 
religious broadcaster in its own programming, unless that discretion is 
exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, and they have always 
had that standard, that is, the standard in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. 
It is always a good debating point to set up a straw man. In this case, 
my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) sets up this straw man as 
being some kind of a cult that would somehow get a noncommercial 
license and proselytize through that operation.
  I would simply say to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), that 
the legislation that was debated in committee, now being debated on the 
floor, is pretty clear, that unless it is unreasonable or arbitrary 
that the decision by the broadcaster will maintain and, in fact, that 
is the way it was from time immemorial until the FCC in this middle-of-
the-night decision over the holidays determined that they would use a 
rather ordinary license swap to try to maintain their ability to 
determine what content was in the area of religious broadcasting; and 
had it not been for the Congress and Members of the Committee on 
Commerce acting quickly to point out what problems that decision would 
bring, had it not been for that outcry and the outcry from the people 
of this country, the FCC would have never decided to rescind that 
decision.
  This bill makes certain that no matter who is at the FCC, no matter 
who appoints an FCC in the future, that these kinds of arbitrary 
decisions based on educational or cultural content basically 
determining what that content is by the Government shall not maintain, 
and that is really why this legislation is absolutely necessary.
  If I was confident that in the future any FCC would follow the 
standard procedures that they had in the past and license swaps and 
decisions on licenses, I would feel a lot more comfortable. But I have 
to say that we have evidence to the contrary. Three FCC commissioners, 
the three Democrat FCC commissioners made the determination that they 
would determine what content in religious broadcasting was all about.
  We are, indeed, representatives of the people. The FCC, despite being 
an independent agency, is essentially bureaucrats that interpret the 
law. We write the laws, so this legislation sets us back where we were 
very comfortably before understanding what the purview of the status 
was and understanding the role of the FCC.
  Ultimately, the FCC cannot, should not be an arbiter of what content 
is in this form of broadcasting, and that is ultimately what this 
decision is all about.
  I do not know whether my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
supported the original decision by the FCC or the decision to overturn 
it, but I do know where he stands on this issue. This legislation is 
absolutely critical.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have never met a group of people who so 
were irked by the possibility of straw men being set up, who have 
demonstrated such massive talent to create a straw man, and I want to 
salute my good friend from Ohio for his ability to create a straw man. 
His straw man is the FCC. Now, the FCC has totally withdrawn the order. 
I opposed it; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) opposed the 
order. The order is no longer a reality; it is gone.
  The FCC is still the skunk at the picnic. Now, I have been more 
critical of the FCC than anybody in the body. I am quite delighted to 
castigate them when they are wrong. The simple fact of the matter is, 
they are not a factor in the debate before us.
  Now, let us look at what the amendment does. It inserts the word 
educational in two places in the legislation, one at page 4 and one at 
page 3; and the purpose of that is to see to it that the organizations 
which seek this are, in fact, setting it up for educational purposes 
and that they are, in fact, educational organizations. That is what 
existing law is.
  Mr. Speaker, the practical effect of this is to assure that the FCC 
will not be compelled to hold comparative hearings, as they must do 
when there is a contest, to choose between two different religious 
organizations, or between a religious organization and a secular 
organization.
  I think if this country wants to proceed down the path of triggering 
the religious wars, which have plagued this race of men, and I am not 
talking about in the United States, but in England, to set up a 
situation where government is going to have to choose between 
religions, between religious teachings or between applicants who might 
have a religious purpose, is probably the finest way to return to the 
unfortunate days of the religious wars.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens if several religious organizations apply to 
the FCC to get a license to broadcast under the bill as it is drawn? 
Then the FCC must commence a process of comparative hearings which will 
then choose. Now the only thing these applicants must do under the 
legislation which is before us is to set out that their purpose is to 
teach certain kinds of religion.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know which one it would be, but that would be 
then the problem before the FCC, which religion? Which religious 
groups? Which religious tenets must they choose?
  I would note that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) generally restores existing law. It does not 
make possible the FCC to return to its follies which have triggered 
this sorry mess, but I would note for the benefit of my colleagues on 
the other side that it prevents the FCC from making a decision on 
religious grounds.
  It also prevents the courts from having before them a question which 
is bottomed on a religion-based application by an applicant for a 
particular license and for a particular wave length.
  Now, I think we ought to understand that this is not the kind of 
choice that we want to have made in this country. Government must stay 
out of religious matters and leave these as private judgments to the 
people who wish to believe and to allow them to choose that which they 
believe without any kind of government preference.
  Now, it would appear that this is some question of religion against 
secularism. Nothing is further from the truth. I would remind my 
colleagues that there are many religious broadcasters who oppose the 
legislation and who support the principles of the Markey amendment, not 
the least of whom are the National Council of Churches of Christ in 
America, the Interfaith Alliance, and the Unitarian Universalist 
Associations of Congregations.
  I would note something else. We are not without a prospering group of 
religious broadcasters; there are over a thousand of them. They have a 
regular program of mailing and discussing issues with Members of 
Congress.

                              {time}  1200

  I have met with my religious broadcasters; and I receive large 
amounts of mail, which I respond to as courteously and carefully as I 
know how. They are a valuable force in our community, and they are not 
threatened by either the status quo or the Markey amendment. The 
responsible ones amongst them will agree, there is no peril to them.
  If you want to put government in the midst of picking religions, 
picking religious broadcasters, supporting religious tenets and 
teaching, and opposing to others, to vote for the bill as it is 
submitted is a fine way to accomplish that purpose.
  If you want to see that government stays out and that we take care of 
not only religious broadcasters, as they should in a fair and proper 
way, but that we take care of education, because I would remind my 
colleagues, this is a

[[Page 11483]]

raid on the educational broadcasting system, the educational 
broadcasting networks and upon public broadcasting, I would point out 
if this legislation is passed, you are going to find any imaginable 
form of religious crank or crackpot to come forward to claim priority 
in terms of religious broadcasting licenses. Reverend Koresh, Jim 
Jones, any one of many, can come in and then force your government, 
your agency, the FCC and this Congress, to address who is entitled to a 
broadcasting license.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the Chair is pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, again I rise, this time in opposition to 
the Markey amendment. Let me do two or three things: One, establish 
what the real agenda is in this case; establish the record; and then 
talk a little bit from personal experience.
  One, what is the agenda? What happened in the case that was decided 
in December, the license in Pittsburgh? After the guidelines came out, 
the Pittsburgh station, the religious broadcaster withdrew its 
application because it did not want to submit itself to the FCC 
guidelines.
  The real agenda here is to banish, to remove, to exclude, the 
religious voice, the religious broadcasters, from non-commercial 
licenses, educational licenses. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 
been very clear. He sees this as public, as educational, not as 
religious. They have plenty of commercial space, but they should not be 
on the public and the educational. He does not see them as performing 
an educational role, a cultural role or instructional role. The agenda 
is clear: Banish the religious voice from the non-commercial spectrum.
  If there is a public park, do not let the religious children play. 
Make them go to the commercial strip mall, and that is the only place 
we will let them play. But not in the public park. There is no place 
for the religious voice in our park.
  Now, we are all somewhat motivated and guided by our own personal 
experiences. I think many on the other side look at the religious 
discrimination and religious bigotry and religious bias that has 
occurred in our history and they see the religious practices as 
dangerous devices.
  I have to admit I come to this floor with great concern and 
disappointment in my heart. I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Michigan, but what has taken place 
today on this floor is that they try to take the worst examples, the 
David Koreshes, the Jim Joneses, and they demonize and they isolate and 
they marginalize the religious voice.
  They take the whole group of religious broadcasters, and there are 
over 800 non-commercial religious broadcasters today on radio, and 
there is not one case, not one case that they can cite of any extreme, 
hate or group that has not behaved responsibly in performing their 
public interest, their community service, their educational, their 
cultural, their instructional roles and responsibilities in the 
community. Not one example.
  In the Supreme Court case, Peyote, the Supreme Court said there is no 
government obligation to protect those who incite hate or who incite 
violence. So if there is a David Koresh or if there is a Jim Jones who 
wants this license, they will not be protected under Supreme Court 
precedent and under the language of our legislation.
  Look at the report language: ``. . . that the organization determines 
serves an educational, instructional, cultural or religious purpose in 
the station's community of license.'' The new section also mandates 
that such determination by the broadcaster may not be arbitrary or 
unreasonable. If it is a hate-based, extreme group, they will be viewed 
as unreasonable and arbitrary. They will not be able to maintain their 
license if they are those types of groups.
  But by tainting those who are responsibly serving their community 
now, I think it is frankly wrong, and it is doing exactly what those on 
the other side hate. They are demonizing, they are marginalizing, they 
are isolating, which then leads to discrimination.
  The religious voice in the public square or in the public park is 
good for our country. It has been that way from our beginning, it is 
that way today, and we simply want to protect and preserve that and 
prohibit the FCC from coming in and regulating and controlling and 
stifling religious expression.
  The gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from California say 
that the Markey amendment will simply return us to the past precedent, 
the past practice. That is not the case. It will return us to the FCC 
guidelines issued in December, which they both said was wrong, which 
led to a regulatory regime of a speech police at the FCC, determining 
what is and what is not acceptable or unacceptable religious speech, 
what is educational in their eyes.
  I urge all of my colleagues, let us not divide, let us not demonize; 
let us protect our fundamental history and legacy of religious liberty. 
There are those that are now performing vital roles in their 
communities. Let us not prevent them from doing so in the future.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, again, let me come back to clarify once again. Under 
existing law, religious broadcasters are able to operate public 
television stations in the United States. However, they do so accepting 
the responsibility that they must serve primarily the educational needs 
of the entire community, although they are free to also broadcast their 
own religious beliefs. But, primarily under existing law, they must 
serve the educational needs of the entire community.
  Under the bill being proposed here today, that very same religion 
will now be freed up to broadcast exclusively their own religious 
beliefs, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now, that is a big change, a 
big change, in the history of public broadcasting in our country.
  No one has any objection to the existing religious broadcasters on 
non-commercial educational broadcasting stations. No one has any 
objection to the existing standards continuing to be used in order to 
define whether or not they are serving the community well. But we do 
object to the standard which the majority is seeking to propound here 
today, which, in my opinion, will be a violation, an encroachment, on 
the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, of the 
first amendment, which creates a very strong line of demarcation 
between the state and religion.
  Here a public broadcasting station will be used by an individual 
religion to propound primarily religious messages all day long on a 
public broadcasting station, and I think at the end of the day that is 
wrong and it is something which should be rejected, as the Markey 
amendment seeks to correct it on the House floor here today.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me point out that the problem is that the FCC got into doing 
that. It got into trying to say which religious content was educational 
enough to please the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) or 
anyone else in this country. That is what was wrong. It basically said 
a church service was not educational enough, a sermon perhaps by the 
Reverend Jessie Jackson on the Ten Commandments would not be 
educational enough for these commissioners, and they were going to 
decide when these religious broadcasters were or were not meeting the 
standards of the FCC, as to whether or not their religious beliefs, 
sermons, and services were educational enough. How crazy. Thank God 
they backed down from it. We need to make sure they never go back to 
it. That is why the Markey amendment needs to be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about with the Markey 
amendment is the FCC deciding what the educational religious intent of 
television broadcasting is. So I pose these questions for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Will the Christmas Mass at the Vatican be able to be broadcast under 
his

[[Page 11484]]

amendment? Obviously it is religious. Under the gentleman's amendment, 
you would no longer see the Christmas Mass at the Vatican on non-
commercial TV.
  What about the performance of the Messiah at the Washington National 
Cathedral here? Under the gentleman's amendment, no longer shall we see 
this.
  The National Day of Prayer here in Congress, which is televised, many 
of the non-commercial religious stations broadcast that. No longer.
  Opening prayer of House and Senate. You could stretch this on and on 
and on and on. Teaching the Ten Commandments. Under the Markey 
amendment, all of this would be gone, and that is why two-thirds of the 
Democrats who are on the commission voted to overturn their own ruling, 
because they realized what they did was wrong.
  What we have today is the FCC creating a category of politically 
correct, government-approved religious speech. Let me repeat that. The 
Markey amendment is creating a category of politically correct, 
government-approved religious speech.
  Interesting, as one commissioner said, ``If you believe what you are 
saying about religion, you cannot say it on the non-commercial 
television band; but if you don't believe what you are saying, then you 
can.'' That is the paradox that the Markey amendment is providing here.
  As I mentioned earlier, I think it is unconstitutional to let the FCC 
have this amount of power. Many of us think the FCC as an agency could 
be done away with. This whole idea of educational TV is being replaced 
through the Internet, through broadband, through wireless, through the 
cable. You get 250 channels through direct television. And here we are 
coming down on religious broadcasting that has been around since the 
start, the very start, of television broadcasting. We are totally 
changing this with this amendment. It has far-reaching implications.
  So I ask my colleagues, do they want to do away with religious 
broadcasting completely and strip all religious broadcasting from 
television? Then they should vote for the Markey amendment. If they 
believe that they want to do away with the broadcasting of the 
Christmas Mass at the Vatican, vote for the Markey amendment. If they 
believe that the performance of the Messiah at the Washington Cathedral 
is wrong and they do not want to see it on non-commercial television, 
then they should vote for his amendment. In fact, simply the 
instructions for proselytizing or talking about religion on television 
will become history under the Markey amendment.
  So I would close, Mr. Speaker, with these comments: The Markey 
amendment would create an educational religious purpose and play into 
the hands of those at the FCC that want to have the say over content of 
religious programming. Instead of providing clarity, which the 
Pickering amendment does, and protection from a hyperactive FCC, and I 
think Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that the FCC is 
hyperactive, instead of that, in reining in their power, we are giving 
them more power, and we are creating confusion for religious 
broadcasters and threatening their very existence.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, just so we can once again clarify, under existing law, 
the way we have operated for the last 50 years in this country, 
Christmas mass can be on a public television station. Handel's Messiah 
can be on a public television station, as long as the operators of that 
public television station are serving primarily the educational needs 
of the community. However, under this amendment, Christmas mass can be 
on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, if that religion 
decides that that is the only thing that they want to put on. They do 
not have to any longer serve any of the educational needs of the 
community at all.
  Under existing law, Christmas mass is on; Handel's Messiah is on. The 
educational needs are served. Under their amendment, their bill, all 
day long, religion 24 hours a day, one particular religion operating 
the public broadcasting station in town with no requirement to serve 
the educational needs of the community in any other way, shape or form. 
The children in the community, the local institutions in the community, 
and no one else.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the 
record.
  Again, there are over 1,000 religious broadcasters who do religious 
broadcasting all day long, today. They do not do educational 
programming and also religious programming; they do religious 
programming all day long. Never in the history of that broadcasting has 
any government bureaucrat ever had the audacity to come in and decide 
which of that religious broadcasting was educational enough for their 
purposes, whether the mass was educational enough, a sermon was.
  But I will tell my colleagues what this commission tried to do in 
December. They tried to say that if 50 percent of it did not meet their 
standards, then they are off the air. This bill will prevent that ever 
happening again. The Markey amendment gives them a back door to do 
exactly what they did in December, to come in and say, we decide that 
50 percent of it needs to be religious broadcasting that we think is 
educational enough; and if it is not, they are off the air. That is why 
it needs to be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We are all agreed here, I think, having listened to the debate, we 
are all agreed on both sides of the aisle and on all sides of this 
question that the Government should not regulate the content of speech 
of noncommercial broadcasters and that the Government should not 
discriminate against some religious speech in favor of other religious 
speech. Both sides of this argument are claiming that high ground and 
saying, vote for us and we will vindicate those principles.
  The legislation that is before us says, and I quote, ``the 
Commission,'' referring to the Federal Communications Commission, 
``should not engage in regulating the content of speech broadcasted by 
noncommercial educational stations.'' That is the principle of this 
bill, to keep the Government out of the business of regulating speech.
  Now, the Markey amendment does something very straightforward, at 
least mechanically. It inserts a word, one word, the word 
``educational,'' as an adjectival modifier in front of another word, 
``religious,'' so that we have an adjective on an adjective, a modifier 
on a modifier, and we now have something called ``education religious 
programming.'' The term ``educational religious programming'' is 
nowhere defined in statute. It is nowhere defined in the rules or the 
regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. I do not know 
what it is, and the author of the amendment does not know what 
``educational religious programming'' is.
  But let us do what a judge or a court would have to do faced with 
this language. A judge or a court would have to say, we have an 
adjective in front of ``religious.'' That means that we have something 
called ``educational religious programming,'' and presumptively 
something that is not ``educational religious programming.'' Two 
categories we have now created, this kind of religious programming and 
that kind of religious programming. Who decides which is which? 
Obviously, because of the way the statute is written and the way the 
gentleman has written his amendment, the Federal Communications 
Commission will decide which is educational religious programming on 
the one hand and which is the other category, presumably noneducational 
religious programming.
  What does the bill do without his amendment? The bill, without his 
amendment, simply creates a presumption. It says, and I quote, 
``Religious programming contributes to serving the educational and 
cultural needs of the public and should be treated by the Commission on 
a par with other educational and cultural programming.''

[[Page 11485]]

  So the FCC has no decision to make. The FCC does not decide which 
religious programming is good and which religious programming is bad; 
it does not run afoul of the establishment clause of the first 
amendment to the Constitution as it would under the Markey amendment.
  This new category that the Markey amendment would create of 
educational religious programming, which as I say, I have never seen, 
does not appear in statute, does not appear anywhere in the 
regulations, would create a lot of confusion. It would be a legal 
unicorn. Nobody having seen it before would not know quite what to make 
of it, or maybe it would be more like the Loch Ness Monster of the 
United States Code. We would see a vague apparition, but we would not 
quite know what to make of it. One court might decide one way; another 
court might decide another way.
  I think that the colloquy between the gentleman from Florida and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts about the broadcasting of a church service 
makes the vagueness, the hopeless vagueness of this amendment's wording 
very obvious. Because the author of the amendment does not really know, 
at least I listened to his remarks and I inferred this much, does not 
really know whether or not under his standard, the broadcast of a 
church service would be acceptable or not. We ought not to put the FCC 
into that kind of legal muddle.
  Remember the reason that we are here is that just 6 months ago the 
FCC said this, quote: ``Church services generally will not qualify as 
general educational programming under our rules.'' They tried to change 
the status quo. The Democrats said that was stupid, the Republicans 
said that was stupid, and so the FCC quickly backed down.
  Mr. Speaker, that leaves but one question. If we reject the Markey 
amendment and we have this base text, why do we need this bill to make 
sure the FCC does not do again what they did in December? After all, 
they have backed down and that argument has been forcefully made by the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  The answer is that the commissioners have let it be known, certainly 
one of them, that they would go forward in this course of action again, 
given the opportunity. So what we are saying in this legislation is the 
following: the Federal Communications Commission shall not establish, 
expand or otherwise modify requirements relating to the service 
obligations of noncommercial educational radio or TV stations, except 
by means of agency rulemaking conducted in accordance with the law.
  Because the FCC not only did something that the Democrats thought was 
stupid and the Republicans agreed was stupid, a word used several times 
to describe their action during the course of this debate, but they did 
so without any, without any public notice or input, or any warning to 
the broadcasters whose licenses were at stake. The policy change was 
announced as part of an adjudicatory proceeding relating to the 
transfer, as we have discussed here earlier in this debate, of a 
Pittsburgh TV station. By acting in this manner, the Federal 
Communications Commission circumvented the Administrative Procedure Act 
which requires public review and comment before any major policy change 
is adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
legislation so that we will have a transparent process, so that we will 
not have bureaucrats run amok, so that we will not find ourselves 6 
months from now on the floor of this House complaining that the FCC 
action directed towards broadcasters was stupid. I urge that we reject 
the Markey amendment so that we do not render this legislation 
unconstitutional and hopelessly vague, so that we keep the Government 
out of the business of regulating religious speech.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill allows, allows the Federal 
Communications Commission to determine that a broadcaster's 
programming, which is primarily religious, is arbitrary or 
unreasonable. In other words, the FCC, under the bill as written, can 
step in and make judgments on religion. We are not getting away from 
the FCC making content decisions. We are simply letting the FCC into 
judging religious programming and whether it is sufficiently religious. 
We should not allow the FCC to become the Faith Content Commission.
  The gentleman from California referenced the bill's findings, and I 
am sure Judge Scalia will appreciate the findings. However, the actual 
legislative charge to the FCC goes much further in the legislation. Let 
me read. It says under Service Conditions on Noncommercial Educational 
and Public Broadcast Stations: ``A nonprofit organization shall be 
eligible to hold a noncommercial educational radio or television 
license if the station is used primarily to broadcast material that the 
organization determines serves a religious purpose in the station's 
community of license, unless that determination is arbitrary or 
unreasonable.''
  There is no requirement that the broadcaster has to have an 
educational content; there is no requirement that it has to have served 
the needs of the entire community. The FCC is put in a position where, 
if two particular religions want one station, that they have to 
determine, the Federal Communications Commission, the Faith Content 
Commission, has to determine which of the two religions can better 
serve a particular community without even judging whether or not either 
religion is going to serve the educational needs of the community. Only 
which one is sufficiently more religious.
  So in fact, while the legislation's ostensible purpose is to remove 
the Federal Communications Commission from content-based decisions, in 
fact, what the legislation is about to do is to open wide the gates for 
religions all across America to begin to lay claim to individual 
educational public broadcasting stations all across America, and to 
argue before the Federal Communications Commission that their religion 
is more religious than another religion in taking over those public 
broadcasting stations. And, as part of the test, the Federal 
Communications Commission will not be able to look at whether or not 
the religion serves any educational need whatsoever in the community.
  Now, that may be the goal, because I know that there is a latent 
hostility on the part of many Members on the other side towards the 
public broadcasting system. I understand that. They have never liked 
the public broadcasting system; they have never enjoyed at all their 
particular mission; they do not like the fact that they, in fact, do 
educate the entire community. I understand how many Members on the 
other side do not like the public broadcasting system. But we are going 
to have to set up an aquarium down here in the well of the House to 
deal with all of the red herrings that have been spread out here on the 
floor.
  What, in fact, the majority is trying to do here today is to take 
public broadcasting stations and turn them into religious stations, 
plain and simple. That is the goal. So if you have a public television 
station back in your hometown and it has historically served the 
educational needs of the community, under this new language, they will 
no longer have to do so, and the FCC will have to intervene in order to 
determine which religion best serves the religious needs of that 
religion, of that community, but will be able to go no further.
  So I say to my colleagues, if ever there was an unconstitutional 
piece of legislation out here on the floor, this is it. If ever there 
was a piece of legislation that is going to be struck down for 
violation of the establishment clause or the separation between church 
and State, this is it.

                              {time}  1230

  But for those who hate the Public Broadcasting System, this is just a 
natural further extension of their attempts to undermine its historic 
and thus far successful mission in every community in the United 
States. It will result ultimately, without question, in a transfer of 
stations over to individual religions with no educational goals 
whatsoever except for

[[Page 11486]]

the proselytizing of their own individual sect.
  That should be allowed. They should be able to purchase commercial TV 
stations. In fact, let us be blunt, under the existing clause, as long 
as the religion does serve primarily the educational needs of a 
community they can talk about their own religion on that public 
broadcasting station, but they cannot do so to the exclusion of all 
other educational content, of all other service to the community, of 
all other service to children within that community.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment which I am propounding is one which very 
simply ensures that the word ``educational'' is inserted before the 
word ``religious,'' that there is an educational component to any of 
this religious broadcasting which is going to be primarily broadcast on 
these public television stations.
  If we do not do that, there is going to be a fundamental change in 
public broadcasting in our country. I know it is the goal of the 
majority, but it should not be the goal either of the Members of this 
House or of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first let my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, know that I do not particularly like characterizing 
motives. I do not like it when we do this on the floor. I do not like 
it when my side does it or the gentleman's side does it.
  However, if the gentleman wants to ask about motives, let me explain 
them. I do not think the gentleman can characterize the motives of 
people regarding public broadcasting. Many like public broadcasting but 
do not like the way it is being funded.
  Many of us think there is enough diversity in television that we do 
not necessarily have to use tax dollars to fund a separate category of 
public broadcasting.
  There are many who were offended when public broadcasting shared its 
donor list only with Democratic organizations. Members might look at 
that and see some real cause for anger and concern on this side. When a 
public institution funded with taxpayer dollars decides to help one 
political party to the exclusion of the other, I guess it is going to 
cause a little anger and upset on this side. It well should have.
  But I have not accused nor would I question the motives of the 
gentleman's side in offering this amendment. I have not said the 
gentleman was against religious programming. I am not suggesting that 
the administration is out to shut down religious programming, or the 
FCC tried to shut down religious voices on noncommercial stations. 
There were some people saying that. I never said that.
  What I have said, what I will continue to say, is that what the FCC 
did in December was stupid. It tried to inject government decisions 
into what was proper religious programming on a religious broadcast 
station. We ought to put a stop to that. It ought to be the decisions 
of the religious programmers themselves to decide what religious 
programming they are going to put on television and radio stations 
dedicated to religious programming.
  Mr. Speaker, the FCC did something very different in December. Up 
until December, it was always the presumption that religious 
programming was presumed to be educational. I happen to think it is. 
The FCC thought it was for years and years, never questioned it.
  Then in December it decided it was going to set up two categories of 
religious programming: educational religious programming and I guess 
noneducational religious programming. If there was not enough of one or 
too much of the other, they would shut them down.
  What an offensive, arbitrary decision by the FCC, which is supposed 
to be carrying out the law, not making up their own law, not deciding 
as a matter of law what was good religious speech on television and 
radio and what was unacceptable. That is wrong. That is what is wrong. 
That is what is unconstitutional.
  This bill will end it. It will not only say to the FCC, you cannot do 
it in the dead of night without public input and proceedings; it will 
say, you cannot ever do it again.
  The gentleman's amendment will give them the right to do it again. 
The gentleman's amendment says, exactly as the FCC wanted to say, that 
there are two categories of religious broadcasting, one educational 
religious, and then something else. They do not define it, do not know 
what it is, and guess who defines it under the gentleman's amendment? 
The same FCC that did the stupid thing they did in December.
  That is the reason the gentleman's amendment needs to be defeated; 
not because the gentleman had bad motives, not because our side has 
better or weaker motives than the gentleman, but because the amendment 
is wrong. It gives the FCC the power to do the stupid thing they tried 
to do in December. That amendment needs to be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is historic in its nature. Many on the other 
side contend that they support the historic mission of the public 
broadcasting stations across the United States. Yet, in their 
amendment, their bill, they are going to remove the educational 
requirement for public broadcasting stations across the country, remove 
it.
  No longer will there be a mandate that as part of the stewardship, 
part of the responsibility of controlling a public broadcasting 
station, that those individuals must serve the educational needs of the 
entire community. They are removing that. It is without question the 
core principle, the constitution that underlies the foundation of the 
public broadcasting stations in our country.
  That is why the national PTA opposes their bill and supports the 
Markey amendment, the national PTA, the teachers, and the parents; and 
the National Education Association as well, and the Unitarian 
Universalist Association of Congregations, the Interfaith Alliance, the 
National Council of Churches of Christ. All of them support the Markey 
amendment and oppose the underlying bill.
  The reason is that they have removed the educational requirement from 
educational TV. They are going to allow for religion to be the only 
thing which is on a public broadcasting station all day long, 
regardless of whether or not it has any educational content whatsoever.
  Even though we concede that under existing law, existing law, that 
religious organizations are able to run and do run very well public 
broadcasting stations across this country, and they include a religious 
component to the maintenance of those TV stations, and that is fine. 
That should continue. Whether it be Christmas mass or Handel's Messiah, 
it should stay on public broadcasting TV stations. We agree with that.
  Where we disagree and where the Markey amendment is so important is 
that we must ensure that the religious component does not replace the 
educational role as the primary responsibility of public broadcasting 
stations in this country.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody has really given on this side 
much thought to what this legislation does. Let us take a situation 
where a religious broadcaster or person who would be a religious 
broadcaster puts in an application and a group of educational 
broadcasters or would-be educational broadcasters put in an 
application. Then we have this occurring, we have a comparative 
proceeding before the FCC at which the FCC has to choose between the 
educational purpose for that station and essentially a religious 
purpose, with literally no real review, with no criteria whatsoever.
  I challenge my friends on this side to come up with any criteria that 
a religious or would-be religious broadcaster

[[Page 11487]]

has to present to the FCC. So we have two situations, probably a 
priority given to the religious broadcasters, but certainly, in any 
event, a choice has to be made then between the FCC having to decide 
whether they are going to have a bona fide religious broadcaster 
broadcasting on that particular wavelength or some religious group 
broadcasting nothing, nothing, there is no requirement for anything but 
religion on that particular wavelength.
  We are setting up a most dangerous situation here. I would simply 
point out to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, he is going to 
bear the guilt of having done this to broadcasting, for having stripped 
the American children of opportunities to have real educational 
broadcasting.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, to use a ploy to say he (Mr. Tauzin) bears 
a guilt is incorrect. Remember, two-thirds of the Democrats and 100 
percent of the Republicans already voted to overturn the decision. So 
if the gentleman wants to point guilt, then he should point it to the 
gentleman's side of the aisle--namely, Democrats where two-thirds of 
the Democrats of the FCC Commission supported what we are doing today.
  I point out in closing to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), if the Christmas mass is broadcast at Fort Pierce, Florida, at 
midnight on Christmas Eve, and then suddenly that station decides, it 
wants to also broadcast it on New Year's Eve, what happens? Suddenly 
the FCC is going to call them up and say, no, and using the gentleman's 
words, the FCC would say there is primarily not enough educational TV 
so we are going to have to stop you from broadcasting on New Year's 
Eve.
  Vote against the Markey amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), a prime sponsor and supporter of the 
legislation.
  Mr. LARGENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I am afraid that some people over at the FCC have been holding their 
cell phones too close to their brains, because this winter they have 
come up with a decision and decided that they know what is best for the 
American people, that they understand the difference between what is 
religious and what is educational, so they have issued an edict.
  They said, Hi, I am from the FCC. We would like to offer you 
additional guidance in determining what is religious versus what is 
educational, and if it is not religious, then it does not count as 
educational; thus, no license. The FCC has really done this. They have 
made a value statement by saying that religious broadcasting is not 
educational.
  It was an unprecedented move by the FCC to become the arbiter 
determining what constitutes religion and what does not. Do Members 
know what? The American people have rejected the decision and the help 
and the additional guidance by the FCC. Today this House will reinforce 
the view of the American people by rejecting the FCC's notion that they 
know what is best.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that is on the floor today takes the word 
``education'' out of public broadcasting. The bill that is on the floor 
here today takes the word ``education'' out of nonprofit educational 
television stations. The bill that is on the floor here today changes 
50 years of American history with regard to the public's relationship 
with public broadcasting stations and removes the word ``education'' as 
a requirement, as a mandate, with regard to how the managers of a 
particular public broadcasting station have to serve an individual 
community.
  If this bill passes, never again will there ever be a test applied by 
the Federal Communications Commission that ensures that the educational 
needs of the community are being served by a public broadcasting 
station. Instead, they insert the word ``religious'' without any 
definition, without any restrictions in terms of how many hours a day, 
how many weeks out of the year, how many years in a row; the totality, 
the entirety of the broadcasting can be religious on a public 
broadcasting station.
  Historically, religions have been able to run public broadcasting 
stations, but using the guidance that they must be primarily 
educational. That is what the Markey amendment does. It requires that 
the educational goals that historically have been the core of public 
broadcasting stations are maintained, while still allowing for there to 
be a religious component, but within the larger context of educating 
the entire community and not just a subpart of that community.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read the bill without the Markey amendment. It 
says that these licenses are reserved to people who prove ``that their 
organization serves an educational, instructional, cultural, or 
religious purpose.''
  We have not taken ``educational'' out. What the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to do is take ``religious'' out. He 
wants to insert ``educational religious.'' The word ``educational'' is 
still in. ``Educational, cultural, instructional, or religious'' is 
what the bill now says.

                              {time}  1245

  Proof it is just not so. What we are doing in the bill, what the 
Markey amendment would undo, is to prevent the Commission from 
qualifying which religious broadcasting is permitted.
  I just attended the D-Day Museum dedication in New Orleans where we 
celebrate the greatest generation, what they fought for in World War 
II. They were fighting to preserve our Constitution and our freedoms. 
Our Constitution says the government needs to stay out of the business 
of religion in our country. Yet, this FCC tried to get into it. This 
bill keeps them out. The Markey amendment lets government get back in.
  We need to defeat the Markey amendment and adopt the original bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The substitute amendment by Mr. Markey will effectively gut the 
legislation before us.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the goal of the substitute amendment is 
to require all public broadcasters to serve an ``educational'' purpose. 
It even creates a new category of programming serving an ``educational 
religious purposes.'' This sounds acceptable on its face as education 
is a very high priority and I commend the public broadcasters that 
focus on education.
  However, a good number of public broadcasters use public television 
stations to provide religious programming to their communities. And the 
FCC tried quite unsuccessfully in December to restrict what type of 
programming could be done. They tried to put a clamp on programming 
that they viewed as not having an educational message, like church 
services.
  Some people within the FCC want to be in the content regulation 
business. They want to be able to dictate to religious broadcasters 
what religious programming is acceptable and that which is not.
  Picture, if you will, several of the over 2000 bureaucrats at the FCC 
watching and listening to religious programming and deciding which 
parts serve an ``educational religious purpose.'' To me, this picture 
is frightening and unacceptable.
  This amendment would serve only to continue the confusion as to who 
is eligible for noncommercial licenses.
  I do not want the FCC involved in content regulation of public 
television stations, especially those that provide a religious message 
and content.
  The substitute amendment is clearly harmful to the original intent of 
the H.R. 4201 and would make the bill meaningless.
  This is why I must respectfully oppose Mr. Markey's amendment and 
urge all Members to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill and on the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by

[[Page 11488]]

the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 174, 
nays 250, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               YEAS--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--250

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Cook
     Emerson
     Ewing
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Roybal-Allard
     Spratt
     Vento
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1307

  Messrs. CUNNINGHAM, KUCINICH, BOSWELL, COSTELLO, and REYES changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 264, 
noes 259, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--264

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner

[[Page 11489]]


     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cunningham
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Herger
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Roybal-Allard
     Vento

                              {time}  1327

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________