[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27594-27598]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
                    THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor weary but well after a 
week in which I have had the privilege of being involved in not one but 
two debates over the very freedoms enshrined in the first amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States. I am humbled as someone who not 
only has been charged with public duties in representing the good 
people of eastern Indiana here on the floor of the Congress, but I am 
humbled as someone who, from my youth, has been fascinated with the 
freedoms enshrined in the first amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States.
  This week, I had the privilege of seeing legislation that I authored 
3 years ago come to the floor of this Congress and be adopted in 
overwhelming and bipartisan measure. It was legislation known as the 
Free Flow of Information Act that I first introduced in the last 
Congress in partnership with Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia, and 
our journey over these last 36 months brought us to that moment, this 
Tuesday, where we were able, through regular order, through a thorough 
process of committee hearings and markups and amendments on the floor, 
to see the first Federal legislation concerning the freedom of the 
press to be adopted by this Congress, a sense that freedom was 
enshrined in the first amendment and added by Congress to the 
Constitution itself.
  What was especially gratifying to me was that we did it in a 
bipartisan way. Because I want to say as a recurrent theme this 
afternoon that on this floor there are many differences of opinion, but 
freedom is not a partisan issue in the House of Representatives. And 
the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech proved this week not 
to be a partisan issue, when 398 of our colleagues came together across 
the partisan divide to say ``yes'' to a free and independent press.
  I come before this Chamber today, Mr. Speaker, to say ``thanks'' and 
to say how moving it was for me to play some small role in putting what 
I believe was a stitch in a tear in the fabric of the first amendment, 
freedom of the press. In that legislation known as the Free Flow of 
Information Act, we created for the first time a privilege, a qualified 
privilege for reporters to keep information and sources confidential.
  Now, this was not a radical step. Some 33 States already have 
statutes that protect a reporter's privilege. But it was the first time 
that it has succeeded in passing the House of Representatives on the 
Federal level. And we await action by the Senate on similar legislation 
and hope for a conference committee and resolution of the matter that 
it might be sent to the President. We also hope, despite concerns 
expressed by the administration, that we can continue to shape this 
legislation, continue to work with the good men and women in the 
Department of Justice Criminal Division to dial it in in such a way 
that would make it possible for this President to sign this 
legislation.
  I come before you today not just because I was privileged to co-
author legislation that protected a reporter's right to the freedom of 
the press and a free and independent press enshrined in the 
Constitution, but also because I have authored one other piece of 
legislation about which we have taken action this week which is also 
about freedom of the press. It is called the Broadcaster Freedom Act. 
It is principally my purpose for coming before the Chamber today. But 
in each case, I want to begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I see the 
two as inextricably linked, that the work that Congressman Rick Boucher 
and I with, now, 390-plus of our colleagues to strengthen a free and 
independent press for those who engage in the business of reporting the 
news, we were attempting to do just as vigorously and just as 
effectively for those who commentate on the news. Because it has been 
the subject of commentators, especially commentators on talk radio in 
America, about which there has been much discussion and much 
consternation since this summer. And as I will expand further, there 
has been what I would characterize as, both on Capitol Hill and off 
Capitol Hill, troubling discussion about returning censorship on the 
airwaves of America by reimposing what used to be

[[Page 27595]]

known as the Fairness Doctrine on radio and television broadcast 
outlets in this country.
  I want to begin by stitching these two projects together because I 
think they are linked. Back in southern Indiana, we like to say ``what 
is good for the goose is good for the gander.'' The press freedom that 
our Founders enshrined in the first amendment for those that engage in 
reporting is also the same freedom I would argue that protects those 
that are engaged in commentating. We tend to forget that opinions that 
we hear, left, right and center, on radio and television are every bit 
as much protected by the first amendment freedom of the press than 
those who are typing copy and bylines that appear on the front page of 
the Indianapolis Star, the Muncie Star Press, the New York Times or the 
Washington Post. And the business of reporting and the business of 
commentating are two time-honored traditions in the practice of 
American press that I have been able to be a part of strengthening and 
defending this week.
  As I said, now on the first, the creation of a reporter's privilege, 
we were able to come to the floor and pass that legislation out of the 
House in strong bipartisan measure. On the second, we took action this 
week to file a, Mr. Speaker, what is known as a discharge petition at 
the Calendar here in the House of Representatives to enable the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act to come to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
  I want to explain to my colleagues and to anyone else looking on the 
import of that discharge petition and why I believe it is every bit as 
important that we have a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act as I 
believed it was important that we have a vote on the Free Flow of 
Information Act.
  Let me take a half step back and say once again what a joy it was for 
me on both of these measures to be doing freedom's work here on the 
floor of the Congress. Because we debate many things in our various 
committees and responsibilities here, some foreign, some domestic, and 
some having to do with spending, some things as mundane as roads and 
bridges and potholes, but as we saw today with our newly elected 
colleague, Congresswoman Tsongas from Massachusetts, every one of us 
takes a very simple oath. We raise our right hand, as she did in this 
Chamber today, in a moment I was privileged to attend as a new 
colleague. We raise our right hand and we take an oath to support and 
uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect her against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is at the very center of what we 
are here to do. In the first amendment of that Constitution, this 
Congress is specifically enjoined. We are, in effect, commanded by our 
Founding Fathers to make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of 
the press. It was an application of that principle, a principle that I 
believe is a principle of limited government, because I happen to 
believe in my heart of hearts, as I said during the debate over the 
Federal media shield bill this week, that as a conservative who 
believes in limited government, I think the only check on government 
power in real-time is a free and independent press. There is actually 
nothing more consistent with my belief in limited government than my 
vigorous defense and advance of the interests of a free and independent 
press.
  Now, that being said, while we have the success on the one, we need 
an up-or-down vote on the other for reasons that I want to describe. 
But I want to be clear on the point that I believe this is all tied up 
in our duty that each one of the 435 Members of this Congress embraced 
in taking that oath of office. Because I can't help but feel that 
whether it was the erosion of an independent press and a rising tide of 
reporters being threatened with subpoenas, subpoenaed, and even being 
put into jail that was encroaching on that injunction in the first 
amendment, I also believe that much of the talk about restoring 
regulation and outright censorship to the airwaves of America, 
particularly the radio airwaves of America, is also violative of that 
specific language in the first amendment.
  Now, about the Fairness Doctrine. The American people love a fair 
fight, and so do I, especially where the issues of the day are debated. 
But I would submit that in a free market, fairness should be based on 
equal opportunity, not equal results. And the fairness doctrine, as it 
was applied to 4 decades in American radio, was a doctrine that, while 
it was perhaps borne of the best intentions, it was not about the equal 
opportunity in a wide range of ideas, but it was about dictating 
results on the airwaves of America. Here is where it came from.
  The Radio Act of 1929 was passed into law by this Congress, perhaps 
well-debated in this very room. When it became law there were, quite 
frankly, Mr. Speaker, very few radio stations in America. I don't know 
the exact number off the top of my head, but radio at the time of the 
Depression was in its infancy. By the time that the Federal 
Communications Commission got around to passing the regulations that 
came to be known as the Fairness Doctrine in 1939, there was virtually 
no television in America, and radio was still in its infancy. Many 
communities in America, having no indigenous radio station at all, but 
the regulations folks then came along and said, look, there is a 
limited number of radio stations in America, in 1929 to 1939, and so 
the thought was because they are, the airwaves belong to the public, 
that, in effect, the Federal Communications Commission ought to make 
sure that both sides of controversial issues is debated fairly and 
evenly. It sounded reasonable enough at the time, I suspect, and while 
it rubs against my more libertarian instincts, I will say, there may 
have been a legitimate basis for the Fairness Doctrine in 1929, less 
so, but maybe in 1939, because of the scarce number of radio signals 
that were there. But from 1939 to 1987, for 4 decades, the Fairness 
Doctrine reined on the airwaves of America.

                              {time}  1430

  As we learned in those 40-some-odd years, there is nothing fair about 
the Fairness Doctrine. The elements of this regulation that were 
designed to ensure that both sides of the argument were heard ended up 
having the effect of ensuring that in most cases, on most radio 
stations, no sides of the argument were heard.
  The reality is that from 1939 to 1987, when the Federal 
Communications Commission struck down the Fairness Doctrine on its own, 
there was virtually nothing like what has come to be known left, right 
and center as American talk radio today. In fact, it is almost 
inarguable that the dynamic forum that has emerged as talk radio today 
virtually began with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
  So the first part of this debate, Mr. Speaker, is we don't need to 
wonder what American broadcast radio would look like if the Fairness 
Doctrine were re-imposed. We have four decades of experience. We know 
precisely what the public airwaves would look like if we returned to 
this arcane rule of content regulation.
  Truthfully, I think the most likely outcome is not that radio 
stations that carry Rush Limbaugh would also carry Alan Colmes. The 
reality is, faced with recordkeeping, red tape, potential legal fees 
that would attach to a Fairness Doctrine challenge filed with the FCC, 
and potential loss of their license, most of the 2,000 radio stations 
today that carry talk radio simply wouldn't carry it any more.
  Now why do I know this? Let me be a little bit autobiographical for a 
second, Mr. Speaker. Before I was elected to Congress in the year 2000, 
I made a living in radio. I had a call-in talk radio show heard 
exclusively in Indiana. It was carried on 20 different radio stations, 
from 9 a.m. to noon. I tell people sometimes I was Rush Limbaugh on 
decaf. I was conservative, but wasn't in a bad mood about it. We had 
all different sides on. But I would bring my cheerful conservative 
perspective to bear across the airways of heartland Indiana every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I started in radio in little old, no pun intended, 
Rushville, Indiana, in 1989, a little tiny show that aired from 6 to 
6:30 p.m. That gave rise to a weekend show, and that gave rise to a 
daily show, and then I was in syndicated radio for the better part of 7

[[Page 27596]]

years. It was a blast. I enjoyed it. When the opportunity came for me 
to go into public service, I was torn because I so enjoyed the 
opportunity to get in front of that microphone and talk to Hoosiers 
every day about the things that were important to them and share my 
philosophy of government.
  My wife and I ultimately felt a calling in our life to public 
service. We stepped forward. I never looked back. But I lived in the 
business for a long time. I spent a lot of time driving around to 
little radio stations across Indiana and dropping off tapes to station 
managers and asking them if they would carry what we conveniently 
entitled ``The Mike Pence Show.''
  So I know these radio station owners, and I know that a lot of them 
run these stations on a shoestring. The reality is, and the reason why, 
when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, there were 200 talk radio 
stations in America, and after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, 
there are now 2,000 talk radio stations in America, is because, quite 
frankly, when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, most radio stations 
just said we can't deal with the controversy, the recordkeeping, the 
making sure that we live up to Federal regulations. For heaven's sake, 
we can't live with the risk that somebody would file a complaint with 
the Federal Communications Commission and we would possibly lose our 
license.
  I saw in the years immediately following the repeal of the Fairness 
Doctrine radio station owners beginning to awaken to the fact that they 
could put commentators on the airwaves and enjoy freedom and let 
nothing other than the marketplace itself choose who was going to 
succeed on their radio station. As my friend, the former majority 
leader, Dick Armey, loves to say often, and I give him credit for the 
phrase, freedom works.
  The truth is, after the Reagan administration struck down the 
Fairness Doctrine, we saw an explosion of talk radio. Frankly, most of 
the talk shows that have succeeded on a national level reflect a center 
right philosophical perspective. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that in 
many of the largest markets around the country, some of the most 
popular talk show hosts are self-described liberals, or progressives 
and I say more power to them.
  The truth is that the reality of American talk radio today is as 
diverse as the American people. And yet, and now I shift on the reason 
for the Broadcaster Freedom Act and the reason for us taking the 
extraordinary measure of filing a discharge petition on the floor of 
the Congress, I say with a heavy heart that some on Capitol Hill are 
calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I will offer some quotes, with great respect to 
colleagues in this Chamber and the next. Senator Richard Durbin said, 
as quoted in The Hill on June 27: ``It's time to reinstitute the 
Fairness Doctrine.'' The Senate majority whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois, 
went on to say: ``I have this old-fashioned attitude that when 
Americans hear both sides of the story, they are in a better position 
to make a decision.''
  Senator Dianne Feinstein told the same publication that she is, in 
fact, ``looking at'' reviving the Fairness Doctrine. She told Fox News 
on Sunday, June 24, that she was reviewing the Fairness Doctrine 
``because talk radio is overwhelmingly one way,'' in her words. Senator 
John Kerry, the former Democratic nominee for President of the United 
States, and easily one of the most respected and powerful Members of 
the United States Senate, told the Brian Lehrer radio show on June 26: 
``I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there. I also think the 
Equal Time Doctrine ought to come back.'' He went on to say: ``I mean, 
these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in 
the balance of the media, is when conservatives got rid of the equal 
time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they have been 
able to squeeze down, squeeze out opinions of opposing views, and I 
think it's been an imposing transition in the imbalance of our 
public.''
  Mr. Speaker, three of the most powerful Members of the United States 
Senate this summer, in the wake of the collapse of the amnesty bill 
that the Senate was attempting to move, expressed with frustration the 
need to return Federal regulation of the airwaves of America. American 
Spectator recently reported that according to two Members of the House 
Democratic Caucus, Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, they will 
``aggressively pursue reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine 
over the next 6 months.'' That was reported on May 14.
  When I brought an amendment to the floor this summer that would just 
buy a 1-year moratorium to the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, 
while 107 of my Democratic colleagues voted with us, none of the 
Democratic leadership or any of the leadership of the powerful 
committees of jurisdiction voted with us to prevent the Fairness 
Doctrine from returning.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other examples of distinguished colleagues who 
have every right to hold the views they hold. I do not question their 
integrity or their sincerity; I just disagree with them vigorously. I 
do not accept the conclusion of the Center for American Progress, run 
by the former chief of staff of the Clinton administration. John 
Podesta, one of the most highly regarded thinkers in the modern 
Democratic Party today, runs a think tank. That group published an 
extensive cross-tabulated report this summer from their Center for 
American Progress entitled: ``The Structural Imbalance of American Talk 
Radio.'' While their proposal did not specifically call for the 
Fairness Doctrine, frankly, it called for much worse. It called for a 
whole new range of regulations involving ownership and consent on the 
airwaves of America.
  So before anyone dismisses our efforts in trying to bring the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of the House of Representatives as 
just more politics, let me say that I believe that it is imperative 
that the American people know that the next President of the United 
States, whoever he or she might be, could reinstate the Fairness 
Doctrine without an act of Congress unless we pass the Broadcaster 
Freedom Act.
  Now, let me get to the legislation and make a few other comments 
about our extraordinary measure in the discharge petition that we filed 
this week. The legislation itself is very simple. The Broadcaster 
Freedom Act, which I introduced with Congressman Greg Walden that is 
cosponsored by every single Republican Member of the House of 
Representatives, and one Democrat, I am very happy and proud to say, a 
formal journalist himself, Congressman John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act simply says this, Mr. Speaker: it says that the 
Congress takes away from the FCC the power to re-impose the Fairness 
Doctrine without an act of Congress.
  Now why is that necessary? Well, I hasten to remind my colleagues and 
anyone looking in that the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 
1987. They were doing away with a regulation that they created. 
Therefore, if the FCC were to change its mind, it could bring back the 
Fairness Doctrine without ever consulting the Congress. The truth is, 
the next President of the United States is, whoever he or she might be, 
were they sympathetic to the opinions expressed by Senator Richard 
Durbin, Senator John Kerry, and others that we need to re-impose the 
Fairness Doctrine, re-impose provisions of regulations like equal time 
and other things, that President, whoever he or she might be, could 
make virtually one appointment to the FCC and restore the Fairness 
Doctrine like that. I think the American people have a right to know 
that. The Broadcaster Freedom Act essentially says we are taking that 
power away from the FCC to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. It's just 
that simple and no more complex than that.
  Mr. Speaker, why do we need to do this? Then I will talk a little bit 
about what we are doing tactically and strategically to get an up-or-
down vote. The reason we are doing it, I think, frankly, is because 
who's against fairness? I have to tell you that I was not terribly 
surprised when a recent national poll done by the Rasmussen polling 
firm found that 41 percent of those surveyed said they would be willing 
to

[[Page 27597]]

require radio and TV stations to offer equal amounts of conservative 
and liberal commentary, and only 41 percent said they opposed.
  So literally the American people, as we stand today, having not had 
this national debate, are fairly evenly divided on what I believe 
amounts to censorship of the airwaves of America. But, again, it's 
because of that pernicious word ``fairness.'' We have seen an entire 
cable television network built on the catch phrase ``fair and 
balanced.'' Yet, as I said at the outset of my remarks on the House 
floor today, there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. The 
reality is that were we to bring back this archaic rule to the airwaves 
of America, we would see talk radio as we know it either greatly 
diminished or essentially vanish from the American political debate.
  So the Broadcaster Freedom Act I think is an effort to run to the 
sound of the guns on behalf of freedom. I hope that my colleagues who 
know me well know that I bring the same sincerity of purpose to this 
mission as I brought to the legislation that I coauthored that we 
passed this week to create a qualified privilege for reporters in the 
Free Flow of Information Act. To me, it's all about that constitutional 
principle of a free and independent press.
  Mr. Speaker, while I will say that despite the fact that the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act is cosponsored by 203 Members of Congress, 
despite the fact that the principles of broadcast freedom that were 
enshrined in the Pence amendment this summer that essentially created a 
1-year ban on re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine passed by 309 votes, we 
are yet to see any action either at the committee level or on the floor 
calendar for consideration of the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

                              {time}  1445

  And I want to tell you, and I will talk a little technical here, Mr. 
Speaker, I am a regular order kind of a guy. I like legislation to go 
through subcommittees and committees and have hearings. I think the 
American people work their will when Congress is moving in the ordinary 
processes designed to vet and draft and redraft legislation.
  And so it is an extraordinary thing for me to say that we ought to 
have a petition that brings the Broadcaster Freedom Act straight to the 
floor. In fact, in keeping with that principle, the rule that we wrote 
is an open rule. I would be more than willing to have several days of 
debate about broadcast freedom on the floor of this Congress. I would 
be more than willing to entertain as many amendments to the Broadcaster 
Freedom Act as Members wanted to propose. This is not an effort to 
silence the debate; it is an effort to have a debate about the freedom 
of American commentators on the public airwaves of America to engage in 
speech in a manner consistent with the first amendment.
  And so this week, as I have been alluding, I along with now, I 
believe, the count this afternoon is about 140 Members of Congress, 
including all of the Republican leadership, we filed what is called a 
discharge petition that, if it is signed by 218 Members of Congress, 
will bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of the Congress for 
an up-or-down vote.
  While I would hope that my colleagues in the Democrat majority, while 
I would hope that the distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, 
might even be looking in on my remarks today and may ultimately decide 
Mike is right, we ought to have a debate and a vote on the Broadcaster 
Freedom Act and the discharge petition would not be necessary, I am 
getting the impression that is not likely to happen.
  And so we have taken an extraordinary measure, and as I said, I, 
along with the Republican leader, John Boehner, the Republican whip, 
Roy Blunt, conference chairman, Adam Smith, and others are now calling 
on our colleagues in a spirit of good will to say: Give us an up-or-
down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, because I want to make a very bold statement about 
this legislation. And having just seen legislation that I coauthored 
get 398 votes on the House floor Tuesday, I hope people don't think 
that I am talking through my hat.
  I want to say with confidence that if the Broadcaster Freedom Act was 
brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, I believe it 
would pass overwhelmingly, because every time freedom gets an up-or-
down vote on the floor of Congress, freedom wins.
  I go back to this summer, as I said, I introduced an amendment, the 
Pence amendment to the appropriations bill that funded the FCC. I 
didn't know how it would do. I introduced the amendment to deny any 
funding to the FCC in the next year to bring back the Fairness 
Doctrine. It was a way of starting this conversation. My gosh, it 
passed; 309 Members of Congress voted for the Pence amendment. It was 
overwhelming, including 107 backbench Members of the Democratic 
majority. I am sincerely grateful for that, but that was a 1-year 
moratorium.
  The truth is we have a Presidential election just around the corner. 
We will have a new administration in Washington, DC, and many of the 
leaders of the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill are calling for a 
return of the Fairness Doctrine, so now is the time for us to 
permanently do what 309 Members of Congress voted to do for a year, and 
that is to ensure the ongoing freedom of the airwaves of America by 
passing the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
  Again, I want to say I am absolutely positive it would win, and I am 
positive it would have an overwhelming bipartisan vote because, as we 
learned this week with the Free Flow of Information Act, every time 
freedom gets a vote on the floor of the people's House, freedom wins.
  Let me close, and I notice from the clock it is coming up on the time 
for me to give a tour to 100 eighth graders from Dearborn County, 
Indiana, and I can't be late for that. But let me say, bringing back 
the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political 
views expressed on the public airwaves. Plain and simple.
  I say with great respect to those who think we ought to return to 
those 4 decades where the Federal Government thought it was its role to 
regulate the debate that took place on the airwaves of radio and 
television, I say with great respect to them, I think there is a great 
danger when we unleash the power of the Federal Government to corral, 
to organize, to minimize or categorize or prioritize the American 
political debate. It is the essence of my belief that as messy as 
freedom is, it is the freedom of the American people that has created 
the most powerful and the most prosperous Nation in the history of the 
world.
  I really believe with all my heart that at the end of the day, that 
as messy and as painful as it sometimes is for those of us in positions 
of public power, that the very well-being of the Nation is tied up in 
those of us in this body standing for the freedoms enshrined in the 
first amendment.
  I was asked by a reporter yesterday at a press conference, Mr. 
Speaker: What if all of talk radio, monolithically talk radio reflected 
a liberal world view, would you still be doing this?
  And I stepped to the microphone confidently and I said: Well, let me 
tell you, a lot of people think a lot of the national news media is 
fairly liberal. And I agree. An awful lot of the people that report on 
the network national news and some of the leading newspapers in America 
are quite liberal in their viewpoints.
  Mr. Speaker, that didn't stop me from coauthoring the Free Flow of 
Information Act to protect the right of reporters in the electronic 
news media and the print media to keep sources confidential. And I 
appeal to my colleagues, men and women of good will all, who voted with 
us this summer for broadcast freedom, to join us again and sign this 
discharge petition.
  I said on the House floor yesterday, if you support broadcast 
freedom, sign the petition. If you oppose the Fairness Doctrine and the 
archaic notion of the Federal Communications Commission regulating the 
airwaves of America as it did for 4 decades, sign the petition. I said 
if you cherish the dynamic national asset, left, right, and center that

[[Page 27598]]

has become American talk radio since 1987, sign the petition. And 
ultimately, if you don't agree with any one of those positions but you 
just think that broadcast freedom ought to get an up-or-down vote on 
the House floor, I say to my colleagues, sign the petition because it 
is imperative to me, and the American people understand, that if 218 
Members of this body sign that piece of paper, we will get an up-or-
down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, and I am positive we will 
send the Fairness Doctrine to the ash heap of broadcast history where 
it belongs.
  I have every confidence that Republicans and Democrats in 
overwhelming numbers will reject the Fairness Doctrine, will adopt the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act, and we will be able, like we did on Tuesday of 
this week, to know that we set aside politics and we stood together as 
a Nation behind that blood-bought freedom of speech and freedom of the 
press that is enshrined in the first amendment.
  Lastly, let me quote President John F. Kennedy, who was a boyhood 
hero of mine. When I first became involved in politics, it may surprise 
some of my colleagues to know that I was the Youth Democrat Party 
Coordinator in Bartholemew County, Indiana. I am probably the only 
Republican in Congress who has a bust of John F. Kennedy in my campaign 
headquarters. But as a fellow second generation Irish American, I still 
find him a deeply inspirational figure.
  It seems to me John F. Kennedy expressed some words that speak to our 
time about this debate. He said: ``We are not afraid to entrust the 
American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien 
philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to 
let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a 
nation that is afraid of its people.''
  Let me say that one more time because it literally could be a part of 
this debate over the Fairness Doctrine today. President John F. Kennedy 
said: ``We are not afraid to entrust the American people with 
unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive 
values.'' Let me stop there.
  You listen to talk radio today, it is almost as if John F. Kennedy 
had listened to it. There are an awful lot of unpleasant facts for 
people in power that get mentioned on talk radio. A lot of foreign 
ideas. Occasionally some downright alien philosophies. If you listen to 
late-night talk radio, there are sometimes literally alien 
philosophies, and there certainly are competitive values.
  But John F. Kennedy went on to say: ``A nation that is afraid to let 
its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation 
that is afraid of its people.''
  You know, America is a Nation of freedom and strong opinion, and our 
government must not be afraid to entrust our good people with all the 
facts and all the opinions necessary to make choices as an informed 
electorate. That is what democracy is all about. Now, is it comfortable 
for men and women in power who work in this rarified air of this marble 
building, no. But is it freedom? Is it what our Founders intended when 
they enshrined a free and independent press in the first amendment of 
the Constitution? You bet it is. I mean to tell you, our Founders did 
not enshrine the freedom of the press in the first amendment because 
they got good press. Our Founders enshrined the freedom of the press in 
the first amendment of the Constitution because they understood that a 
free and independent press is the only check on government power in 
real-time. And our Founders whose faces, some of which are chiseled 
into the wall or painted on canvasses in this Chamber, believed in 
limited government and they believed in holding people like me and the 
other 434 Members of Congress who work in this Chamber accountable to a 
free and vigorous debate among the American people.
  So I just come to the floor today to say thank you to my colleagues, 
thank you for standing for a free and independent press this week in 
the Free Flow of Information Act. I am deeply humbled and grateful for 
the work of my coauthor and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) as we passed the first Federal legislation protecting a 
reporter's right to keep a source confidential in American history. It 
passed the House this week. It passed by 398 votes.
  I also want to thank my colleagues who stood with me this summer 
against broadcast censorship, voting for my amendment to ban the 
Fairness Doctrine for 1 year, 309 Members, 107 Democrats in the 
Congress joined us, and I thank them for that.
  I want to thank the 203 colleagues, all of the Republicans and one 
Democrat, who have cosponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act that would 
send the Fairness Doctrine to the ash heap of broadcast history 
forever.
  Now I want to close on this last legislative day of the week with a 
challenge.

                              {time}  1500

  I want to challenge my colleagues to sign the petition that's at the 
counter to bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of the 
Congress for an up-or-down vote; and I say again, Mr. Speaker, to you 
and to my colleagues and to anyone who might be looking in, if 218 
Members of Congress sign the discharge petition for the Broadcaster 
Freedom Act, we will bring this legislation to the floor of the 
Congress and it will pass.
  I say that having been through literally thousands of votes on this 
House floor, many of which I didn't know the outcome before I showed 
up, some of which I had to wait a long time for the outcome, longer 
than I should have. But this one I say with confidence and with 
humility and with gratitude, if the Broadcaster Freedom Act that would 
do away forever with the Fairness Doctrine comes to the floor of the 
House of Representatives, it will pass with bipartisan support because 
freedom is not a partisan issue on the floor of the Congress.
  I believe we proved this Tuesday with the Free Flow of Information 
Act what we will prove the day the Broadcaster Freedom Act comes to 
this floor, that every time freedom gets an up-or-down vote in the 
House of Representatives, freedom wins.
  So I urge my colleagues, but especially those who supported broadcast 
freedom earlier this year, sign the discharge petition for H.R. 2905 
and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of the Congress; 218 
Member signatures will make it possible for the American people to have 
their say and send the Fairness Doctrine forever to the ash heap of 
broadcast history where it belongs.
  Let's bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor. Let's let 
freedom reign, and let's do it together as we did this Tuesday, 
Republicans and Democrats, standing for the freedoms enshrined in the 
first amendment, the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech, the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act.

                          ____________________