[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27859-27867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, my greetings to my colleagues, 
especially my friend from Ohio and her remarks. I look forward tonight 
to talking about another civil right, and that is freedom of 
expression, guaranteeing that we have the ability to have freedom of 
expression of even controversial political and religious topics on 
America's airwaves. That's right, to make sure when issues are debated 
on talk radio or talk TV, that somehow there aren't government censors 
down the street at the FCC trying to silence those who are having these 
discussions about today's most vibrant issues.
  It really goes to the heart of our democracy, I believe, to have an 
informed democracy which comes about because

[[Page 27860]]

we have a vigorous discussion, intellectual discussion, a vibrant 
discussion about the issues of our day. Certainly, whether you are a 
conservative Member of the House or a liberal Member of the House or 
somewhere in between, we all debate these issues here; and some of what 
we say here actually ends up on the airwaves of our broadcast radio and 
television stations. That is a healthy thing for our country, for our 
democracy and for an informed electorate.
  In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated a 
regulation that said every time you have a discussion about a 
controversial issue, you have to have an opposite viewpoint presented 
on the public airwaves. On its face, that certainly sounds fair, and 
that is why they called it the fairness doctrine and the whole premise 
was in 1949 that there weren't many radio stations. I think there were 
2,800, and this was all designed to try and spur communication, to spur 
this debate on the airwaves, to have opposing viewpoints come forward. 
This was the government's viewpoint. This is what the Federal 
Government said this is how we will get this discussion going on the 
public airwaves. There aren't too many radio stations and very few 
television stations, no Internet, no iPods. That was it.

                              {time}  2045

  So they said, well, pass this regulation that will cause all this 
great discussion to occur. Well, guess what? That was 1949. Talk radio 
really didn't come about until about 1988 when, after a series of court 
decisions found that the so-called fairness doctrine really wasn't fair 
at all but, moreover, didn't spur the kind of debate on the public 
airwaves, and in fact, the courts have held, and I'll get into this in 
detail in a few minutes, but this Federal regulation actually had a 
very chilling effect on free speech, very chilling effect, actually 
discouraged discussion of public policy issues on the airwaves. That's 
right, discouraged discussion of public policy on the airwaves, had a 
chilling effect, chilling effect on free speech in America. And as a 
result, the Federal Communications Commission in 1987, I believe it 
was, decided to repeal the so-called fairness doctrine.
  What happened after that? Well, what happened after that was all of 
the sudden talk radio came to life in America. Now you may like certain 
hosts and you may despise certain hosts. You may be a conservative 
Member of this House and think everything Rush Limbaugh says is gospel 
and the same thing with Sean Hannity. You may be a liberal Member of 
this House and like the words of Al Franken or Alan Colmes or someone.
  None of those hosts would be at the level they are today if the 
fairness doctrine were still in place. So why am I down here talking 
about the fairness doctrine, a regulation that was repealed in 1987, 20 
years ago? What's the issue?
  Well, the issue is this, that there are Members of this body and the 
one across the Capitol, there are the powerful elite in this city who 
don't like what happens on talk radio, makes their lives uncomfortable, 
gives them great discomfort. The most recent example of which was when 
the Senate was debating the immigration legislation and moving quite 
rapidly forward on that flawed legislation, and talk radio got a hold 
of it on the conservative side or on the liberal side and began to go 
into it in detail with the audiences they reached, the millions and 
millions of average Americans out there who are listening to talk 
radio. The more they educated the public, the more they debated and 
engaged their audiences in this debate, the more pressure got turned up 
on this issue.
  It's just one example. You know, the issue ended up being defeated in 
the Senate, and some of them who are on the other side said talk radio 
is to blame and we need to do something about talk radio, that's not 
fair, we need to bring back the fairness doctrine. That's why I'm here 
tonight and why the Republican leadership has asked me to speak on this 
issue, because there is a very real threat at very high levels in the 
government, the Congress, that is, to bring back the fairness doctrine, 
which would be one of the worst things I think could happen.
  Now, why did they ask me? Well, I serve on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and the Telecommunications Subcommittee, but that's not why. 
They asked me because I grew up in a radio family. My father started in 
radio in the 1930s in rural Oregon, helped put stations on the air. He 
was an engineer and an announcer and a sportscaster and eventually, in 
1967, was able to scrape together with a partner enough money to buy 
his first radio station and added another one he put on the air in 
1978. And in 1986, my wife and I bought them from my parents and added 
three more. So I've been a small market broadcaster for 21\1/2\ years, 
and so I've seen this evolution of pre-fairness doctrine, post-fairness 
doctrine.
  Indeed, one of our radio stations carries Rush Limbaugh and Sean 
Hannity and Michael Reagan and others on the conservative side, and 
there's great audience response. There are other radio stations, 
Portland and around, that have great audience response from Air America 
and the liberal viewpoints, and that's fine. That's what America's 
about is this debate of free speech.
  I think that even liberals and conservatives should be able to agree 
that having somebody down at the Federal Communications put in 
regulation the so-called chilling fairness doctrine would be the worst 
thing that could happen to a debate about public policy in America, the 
worst thing.
  So recently, knowing that this was gurgling up in our Nation's 
capital, I wrote to the chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, and I'll put this letter in the official Congressional 
Record, but let me read you some excerpts, because I asked the thoughts 
of the chairman, Kevin Martin, about the appropriateness of the 
fairness doctrine, and he writes back:
  ``As you are undoubtedly aware, the fairness doctrine obliged 
broadcasters to provide an opportunity for the presentation of 
contrasting viewpoints on those controversial issues of public 
importance that they covered,'' and he goes on to cite some court 
cases.
  ``In 1987, based on its 1985 Report on the fairness doctrine . . . 
and an extensive subsequent administrative record, the Commission 
concluded that enforcement of the fairness doctrine was not in the 
public interest and thus decided to abandon it.
  ``Among other things, the Commission found that the doctrine `chilled 
speech' by `providing broadcasters with a powerful incentive not to air 
controversial programming above a minimal amount' in order to avoid 
burdensome litigation over whether it had complied with its obligation 
to provide contrasting viewpoints . . . Based on its examination of the 
record, the Commission concluded the fairness doctrine had created `a 
climate of timidity and fear, which deterred the coverage of 
controversial issue programming.' . . . Indeed, the record'' compiled 
``by the Commission at the time included over 60 reported instances in 
which the fairness doctrine had inhibited broadcasters' coverage of 
controversial issues.''
  Sixty instances where the fairness doctrine had inhibited the 
coverage of controversial issues.
  Now, you say why would that be? All they've got to get is somebody 
with an opposing viewpoint to come on. Well, what happens is if you air 
a controversial issue, which opposing viewpoint do you have to give 
access to the airwaves to? And there are a multiplicity of groups out 
there who demand that access, and if they didn't get it, they would 
threaten the very license of the broadcast station. They'd threaten 
them at the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission.
  If you go back, there are examples in the 1960s of the Nixon White 
House and the Kennedy White House using the fairness doctrine to try to 
intimidate and silence their critics. Nixon, Kennedy, misusing the 
fairness doctrine. It's wrong. It's chilling. It was intimidating. 
These are the words of the current chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission. I will put his letter back to me in the 
Record.

[[Page 27861]]

  So, if the current chairman and the makeup of this commission doesn't 
believe in the fairness doctrine, why are we worried? Because the next 
administration will appoint new commissioners to the Federal 
Communications Commission, and that next administration could appoint 
commissioners who could write a rule to restore this government 
censorship into their rules.
  Now you say, but you've said, Congressman Walden, that this is 
chilling and the courts have said this chills free speech. Yes, but 
they've never overturned it, and if it were put in rule, it would have 
a gagging effect on talk radio and talk television, including religious 
broadcasters by the way, immediately, I believe.
  And so while it might take years to work its way through the court 
system, it was chilling effect on free speech in America, a guarantee 
of the first amendment of our Constitution. That effect would be 
immediate and devastating.
  And so here on my left, well, here's Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, 
Hannity and Colmes, duct tape over their mouth. That was a nice little 
Photoshop thing we did, but the point is clear. Restoration of this 
government regulation would silence them, but it's more than just them.
  It's here starting on the far right over here. Lars Larson from KXL 
in Portland, has a national talk show as well. Garth and Rosemary 
Harrington out of KCMX in Medford, Oregon, or Bill Myers out of KMED, 
local in my district talk show hosts, in my State and national talk 
show hosts. People that we listen to, don't always agree with. You can 
always turn the dial and find a different topic on a different station. 
People we listen to. The threat's real.
  So what are we doing about this threat? Well, Congressman Mike Pence, 
my colleague and former TV journalist from Indiana, and I have 
cosponsored H.R. 2905. That's the Broadcaster Freedom Act, and the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act, we tried to get hearings on, and the new 
majority doesn't want to give us a hearing on the bill. At least they 
haven't. It just says it takes an act of Congress, FCC, to restore the 
fairness doctrine. You can't just go do it on your own. You can't be 
five commissioners down the street who want to put the fairness 
doctrine back in rule and silence talk radio. No, you can't do it that 
way. In fact, we're not going to let you. Let's have the people's 
elected representatives be the ones to make that decision.
  It doesn't sound so bad. It's a rule that's repealed today, not on 
the books. This commission says they have no interest in putting it in, 
or opponents of this effort even say, well, what are you worried about? 
My question is, if there's nothing to worry about, what are you worried 
about bringing this up for a vote? We ought to do it. Can't do it.
  So the only alternative left to my colleague Mike Pence and I, both 
Republicans, but this doesn't have to be a partisan issue at all 
because I think all of us in this Chamber are for free speech and 
public debate, our only alternative left is something arcane known as a 
discharge petition. You all know that.
  My colleagues know what a discharge petition is, but for those who 
may be new here and don't know, it's simply a petition you sign right 
over here at the front desk. And if a majority of the House, 218 
Members, sign that petition, we'll get an open rule on the floor. We'll 
debate this issue in full and open and public display of our colleagues 
and citizens of this great country about freedom of speech.
  And I predict we'd pass H.R. 2905 in a landslide, because the last 
time we voted on this issue was to deny funding to the Commission to 
reinstitute the fairness regulation and the censorship regulation, and 
more than 300 of the 435 Members of this great House voted with us, my 
colleague Mike Pence and with me, to prevent any funding being spent by 
the FCC.
  So we know from that vote there are more than 300 of you here in the 
House who would support what we believe in, that you, too, support free 
speech over America's airwaves, that you support it.
  So, it's simple. We just need 218 of 435 to sign the discharge 
petition. Just sign the petition. If you're for free speech over the 
public's airwaves, sign the petition. If you're for gagging people on 
the left, the right, the middle, religious broadcasters, then don't 
sign the petition. If you're for free speech, you sign the petition.
  Now, I want to share with you some correspondence I've gotten back 
since we've started down this path and, the station vice president/
general manager of the CBS affiliate in Portland, Oregon, KINK and 
KLTH, wrote back to me, said:
  ``Greetings from Portland!
  ``Thank you for your efforts in opposing the re-introduction of the 
fairness doctrine. I appreciate getting copied on your inquiry to the 
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin regarding his views on the subject.
  ``The fairness doctrine is a classic example of an initiative that 
yields the opposite effect to its intended objective. A less-regulated 
forum for thoughts and ideas remains the best guardian for the well-
being of our democracy.
  ``With warm regards,
  ``Stan Mak,''
  ``VP/GM, KINK & KLTH.''
  A less-regulated forum for thoughts and ideas remains the best 
guardian for the well-being of our democracy.
  Some other e-mails that we've gotten: Thank you for fighting to rid 
the U.S.A. of the fairness doctrine, which to me is nothing less than 
an attack on our freedom of speech. This insidious attack must be 
stopped. Please keep fighting, and don't let up until it's forever 
gone. Thank you. Mr. Graham Salisbury of Portland, Oregon.
  Dear Congressman Walden, I was heartened to learn of your effort to 
force a vote on the BFA, possibly spurred by the current Limbaugh 
smear, because I find the fairness doctrine to be truly frightening. 
Mr. Dylan Greenhoe of Portland.
  Mr. Robert Barrie of Grants Pass, Oregon, writes: I have just 
received your e-mail newsletter and I would like to tell you that you 
have my full backing on H.R. 2905. I must share your frustration that 
certain Members of Congress could be blatantly blind to the fact that 
the grassroot American public was able to see through the faulty 
Senate-proposed immigration bill, primarily due to the freedom of talk 
radio. If it had not been for American talk radio, most of us would not 
have had the slightest idea what was really in this legislation.
  We must do everything in our power to see that the fairness doctrine 
is never brought back to American radio airwaves. Please keep me posted 
on this very important bill.
  Mr. Robert Barrie, Grants Pass, Oregon.
  Sign the petition. Sign the petition. Bring H.R. 2905 to the floor 
and keep America's airwaves open to debate on the right, the left, the 
religious center.

                              {time}  2100

  Can you imagine if you are a religious broadcaster and the regulators 
down the street put this gag back in place, and you are preaching a 
Christian message, let's say, do you have to bring on an atheist then 
to preach the opposite? Is that the kind of fairness some regulator 
here in Washington might demand in order for your station to get 
relicensed? I don't know. Clearly, though, in this day and this 
litigious society that we are living in, there are plenty of organized 
and certainly well-funded organizations out there who would love to 
silence their critics on either side.
  This isn't about whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. This 
isn't about whether you are liberal in your viewpoints or conservative 
in your viewpoints. This cuts to the very foundation of free speech, 
which, obviously, underlies our entire country and our foundation for 
democracy. Without free speech, you do not have an informed democracy. 
Without that, you know, we don't have much of anything; we don't have 
much of anything.
  So when you look at these issues, according to the FCC itself, the 
coverage of this old fairness doctrine was you

[[Page 27862]]

had to have these issues covered, controversial issues covered to be 
fair. According to the FCC itself, this meant that each time a 
broadcaster presented an arguably controversial issue of public 
importance, they ran the risk of a complaint being filed, potentially 
resulting in litigation and penalties.
  I want you, my colleagues, to tell me in today's environment how you 
would define arguably controversial issues of public importance. Is 
there anything that we debate here somebody might not say is arguably 
controversial?
  The penalties that could emanate if this were put back in place 
included government sanction, administrative and legal expenses, or 
even revocation of broadcast licenses, clearly underscoring the need to 
pass H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act. There is one bill number 
or one term you need to leave here tonight remembering, it's pass H.R. 
2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, unless you are for gagging those 
talk show hosts, like Bill Myers, who has spoken up aggressively about 
protecting American sovereignty, getting control of our borders, making 
sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent helping Americans, and those 
who are here legally, not the other way around, Garth and Rosemary 
Harrington, who are always talking about freedom in America and 
supporting our troops and standing up for our natural resource-based 
economy. Of course, Lars Larson who has been out there as well on all 
of these issues.
  There are those in this Congress, and in this city, who seeks to put 
duct tape over their mouths, as we have done photographically here for 
display purposes only. That is what they want to do. They want to gag 
them. They want to shut them down because they don't like what they are 
saying, because they say things that aren't on the script.
  Now I know, I don't always agree with all these folks. I mean, who 
does? Sometimes they engage in a little over-the-top discussion. I 
think, frankly, they are trying to get people to think. They are trying 
to jab them a little bit, get them outside of the box and look at 
issues differently.
  If people didn't like what they heard, these people would be off the 
air because, especially in commercial broadcasting, it is all about 
ratings. Ratings are all about who is listening. Nobody is listening, 
nobody is buying advertising. They are packing up their microphones and 
their headphones, and they are headed out the back door. No, see, 
people are listening. They like to be challenged. You may not listen 
all the time, every day, every show. You may disagree, as I do, from 
time to time, with all these folks. But we should never disagree on the 
fact that we are better served with free speech in America.
  You know, Congressman Pence and I last week, along with Congressman 
Boucher and a whole host of folks, Congressman Boucher and Congressman 
Pence really led the effort, passed legislation overwhelmingly in this 
House to protect journalists from government intervention and trying to 
figure out who their sources are.
  Government always wants to kind of get in there and shut down people 
they don't want to hear from. They want to hide things sometimes when 
there are mistakes made. Nobody wants to be embarrassed; but without an 
active and vibrant press, and I was trained as a journalist at the 
University of Oregon, did a little bit of reporting in my background, 
without that, without sources that you can protect, we would not have 
the balance that we need in an informed democracy.
  Let me talk a little bit about the Supreme Court cases related to the 
fairness doctrine. Again, remember, sign the petition, help us bring 
H.R. 2905 to the floor and prevent these things from happening.
  But in 1969, we saw the first Supreme Court test of the fairness 
doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting v. The FCC. Although the court ruled 
then, remember, this was 1969, that the fairness doctrine didn't 
violate a broadcaster's first amendment rights, it did caution that if 
the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the constitutionality 
of the regulation should be reconsidered.
  In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the fairness doctrine 
inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. 
That was in the Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Torino lawsuit. 
Twenty-three years ago, 1984, the year Ronald Reagan was reelected, in 
FCC v. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded 
that the fairness doctrine was limiting the breadth of debate. This 
ruling set the stage then in 1999 for the Federal Communications 
Commission to repeal the fairness doctrine.
  So the Supreme Court of the United States, over many, many years, 
almost 15 years, the Supreme Court provided all of us in the Congress 
good enough reason in underpinnings to get rid of the fairness doctrine 
to make sure it never comes back. The commission got the message, 1987, 
said, we are going to repeal it.
  But, you know, our memories sometimes in this body are a little 
short, and some people get a little tired of what they hear and the 
criticism they take, and, believe me, we all get it, but silencing our 
critics is fundamentally, and I will be careful how I use this word, 
but silencing our critics is un-American. Free speech is American. This 
is un-American to say we are going to gag people because we don't like 
what they say.
  I don't think any of us here stand for that. I really don't. I 
honestly believe we want vigorous, open debate of issues, and we are 
better off for it. How many times do the Members of both sides of the 
aisle complain when legislation is rushed to the floor without a 
hearing, without the benefit of Members who bring various expertise, 
have them weigh in with amendments? We are seeing this rash, 
unprecedented rash of closed rules, no amendments, no hearings on major 
legislation because some powerful folks say we just want to get this 
done. We know what's right. We don't need your help. We don't want to 
listen to your critics; we don't want to listen to your complaints. We 
are just going to do it, and get over it.
  Well, some of those same people may be the ones who say we don't like 
this talk radio thing; we don't like the fact they are bringing up 
different view points; we don't like the fact that Rush Limbaugh or 
Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes, Garth and Rosemary, Bill Myers or Lars 
Larson are talking about issues that, gosh, if people only knew the 
details of it would make our jobs uncomfortable. Well, tough, this is a 
democracy, and the voters decide whether they like what we do or not.
  But if they are not informed, how do they know what we do here? How 
do they know? How do they know that we couldn't get a hearing on H.R. 
2905? How do they know?
  Well, I will tell you how they know, and how they know, how Americans 
know that this is an issue is because of talk radio, because we have 
told them. Some of us said, help us protect free speech on America's 
airwaves. Here we are today talking about a regulation overturned 20 
years ago, one that we don't ever want to come back, one that the Bush 
administration doesn't want to come back, one that the FCC says we have 
no interest in bringing back. But we know there are those with a change 
of control, the administration, in just, you know, a couple of months, 
might put in place people who want to bring it back.
  I am here tonight to say to my colleagues, and I know Dr. Burgess, 
who is going to speak after me, I believe, has already signed the 
discharge petition, as have nearly 140 of my colleagues, or perhaps 
more by the end of tonight, we just need 218, 218 people to sign the 
petition to prevent talk radio and talk TV and religious broadcasters 
from being gagged in what they do. We just need 218.
  I am joined by my friend and colleague from Dallas, Texas, the 
Honorable Pete Sessions, who has signed the petition so that we can 
bring H.R. 2905 to the floor.
  I know Congressman Sessions, who serves on the Rules Committee, has 
been very frustrated with the lack of free speech coming to this floor 
through legislation, because he is up there trying to fight for the 
rights of

[[Page 27863]]

the minority to be able to have their views heard in this House and to 
be able to have their amendments debated in this House. I know he 
doesn't support silencing talk radio and talk TV as restoration of the 
fairness doctrine would do, but rather thinks like I do that we ought 
to pass H.R. 2905 and protect the first amendment rights of those on 
the public's airwaves.
  Perhaps my colleague from Texas would like to make a comment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank you for not only taking time, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for taking time to lead in this Congress the 
debate and the discussion on not only the fairness doctrine, which we 
oppose in this United States House of Representatives, perhaps, more 
importantly, a vision about what we are trying to have in this country, 
for not only free speech, but also the ability to speak fairly and 
freely about the things which we hold dear, not only in our hearts and 
in our minds, but also in this country and in America.
  The gentleman from Oregon has already outlined previously that what 
happened is that prior to about 1987 we did have something that was 
called the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine essentially says 
this, that if you are on talk radio in this country that you would have 
to give the same time, the fair time, equal time to an opponent, 
someone who had an opinion different than your own.
  As a result of the fairness doctrine, which I believe and others 
believe, and perhaps the Supreme Court believes, would be illegal, what 
has happened is that talk radio and the ability for the American people 
to speak freely, openly, without fear that what they are saying would 
be, they would be taken to task for. What has happened is that talk 
radio has flourished all around the country. Talk radio has flourished 
not only about thoughts and ideas, but about the greatness of this 
country.
  I do believe that what the gentleman is talking about is the right 
thing to do. That is why I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 2905.
  The gentleman from Oregon also talked rather freely and openly about 
my service and the service of three of my other colleagues who are 
Republicans on the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is that body 
that is interested in making sure that the debate that comes to the 
floor of the House of Representatives has a chance, first of all, to be 
heard and all thoughts and ideas are debated.
  We have rather openly, and the gentleman from Oregon knows this, 
whoever is in the majority, whoever is in the majority has a very 
difficult time as a result of the rules of the House with germaneness 
of amendments and the things which we do of trying to have a balance 
about hearing good thoughts and ideas, making in order amendments, 
without killing the general intent of what legislation is for. I think 
that that is part of what this fairness doctrine might be about from 
their perspective and where we disagree with the fairness doctrine, but 
being able to openly talk about things.
  The fact of the matter is that the Rules Committee yesterday, or 
today, heard a discussion, and I think it was last week that the 
Democratic Party has a new record of closed rules, today a new record 
on closed rules to where they don't want any debate.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I think there may be some newer Members here 
who don't understand the significance of what a closed rule means. What 
that means is no Member of the House has an opportunity to have an 
amendment heard on that issue, right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Oregon, the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon for trying to get more information 
out of it. That's right, a closed rule says that the committee, the 
Rules Committee, would make a determination about what would be made, 
what we call in order, which means what would be debatable and anything 
outside of that order, even if you had a good idea sitting on the floor 
of the House of Representatives, you could not engage in the debate. 
You could not put an amendment forward.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I am a little troubled by that because I 
thought that the Speaker of the House, when she took over, announced 
that the House would be run differently and that there wouldn't be 
closed rules.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, reclaiming my time, the gentleman would be 
correct. Mrs. Pelosi has stated, it is on her Web site tonight, has 
been, that this new Democrat majority would be the most open, honest 
majority in the history of Congress, and yet, they lead already a new 
record in terms of closed rules
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Which means shutting down debate, shutting down 
amendments, limiting all of us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Shutting down debate and amendments and making those in 
order. And so it's interesting that what has tried to be done here, 
with the fairness doctrine is actually, in this Member's opinion, a 
silencing. The fairness doctrine would silence talk radio, would put 
those that might be like Sean Hannity or might be like Rush Limbaugh or 
back home in Dallas, Texas, Mark Davis of a local radio station that we 
have in Dallas, it would mean that they would be required, if they're 
going to talk about a subject, that they would be required to have an 
opposing side to come and speak about that also. And I think that puts 
a chilling effect not only on free speech, one which I think is 
unconstitutional, but perhaps, more importantly, it is an intrusion 
upon the free thought processes of America and Americans.
  And so tonight, what the gentleman is doing is correctly saying that 
we, in this body, the House of Representatives, believe that signing on 
to H.R. 2905 says that we're not going to go and step backwards in this 
country. We want free speech to continue and to flourish, and for talk 
radio and thought processes to be alive and well.
  Now, I know, and I assume the gentleman from Oregon knows this too, 
that what's happened, what would happen as a result of this, or what is 
happening as a result of this is that Mrs. Pelosi and others recognize 
that talk radio talks about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic 
Party's agenda, raising taxes, more rules and regulations, more rules 
and regulations to where, on a regular basis, I feel compelled to tell 
the truth about the Rules Committee, that the Rules Committee seems to 
be a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL-CIO, that it appears as though 
the Rules Committee receives their instructions directly from union 
central, John Sweeney, telling them exactly which bills will be made in 
order. We've had so many bills which are under the construct of trying 
to say it's about worker safety or it's about making things fairness in 
the workplace, but in fact it is about further unionizing and 
empowering unions in this country against consumers and against the 
working people of this country with powerful unions.
  And lastly, that the Republican Party will speak very openly about 
how dangerous we believe single-payer system to health care would be to 
this country. And so, there are, the Democratic Party in this country 
does not want those debates to take place. They want us to, talk radio 
and Republicans, if we're going to be heard, to allow the other side to 
have a chance to dispute everything we say. And I would say let the 
Democratic Party have their talk shows and let them speak freely about 
raising taxes, more rules and regulations, and empowering the unions in 
this country to become, once again, more powerful, and to talk about 
how the free enterprise system is something that they don't support, 
that they believe that raising taxes is the right thing to do. Let them 
have their own talk radio show. But I would say, equally, that they 
need to make sure that they are not intruding on the Constitution and 
people in this country who choose to stand up and speak about the 
things which we believe are important.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me time.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate the gentleman coming, speaking 
this evening on the floor of the House. The gentleman from Texas has 
done fine

[[Page 27864]]

work in the Rules Committee and stood up in a valiant fight. But you're 
outnumbered there two to one by the Democrats, correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Actually a little bit more than two to one. It's 9 to 
4, so it is a bit more.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. It's pretty hard to get bipartisanship there if 
it's always a 9-4 vote, isn't it?
  Mr. SESSIONS. And I thank the gentleman for asking about that. What's 
interesting is that in the Rules Committee, January, February and 
March, we heard our new colleagues, who are brand new freshman on the 
Rules Committee, in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi and lockstep with the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter). And they attempted to justify everything they did by saying 
when we really get outside of our six for '06, which was their 
political agenda, you're going to start seeing lots of open rules. You 
will see lots of debate.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And has the gentleman seen lots of open rules 
on major policy issues?
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, we have not. And I thank the gentleman for 
asking that question. Have we seen this change from January, February, 
March, April or May? And the answer is no, we have not.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Does the gentleman believe that that brings 
disrespect on this House for----
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think that the question that you raise is, do I 
believe that someone who said that they were going to not do that, that 
they sold to this House and their membership that that was the wrong 
way to run the railroad and that they would think of better ways, yes, 
I think that they did say that. And I think it's interesting, as the 
gentleman may remember, just 2 weeks ago, we had a bill that came from 
the Financial Services Committee, one in which the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the gentleman, Mr. Frank, as the chairman, had worked 
very closely with his members about talking about what they would make 
in order, and then working, can I say that word ``bipartisanship'' down 
here? They worked in a bipartisan fashion in the committee, only to 
come to the Rules Committee and the chairman of the committee to ask 
and to say, it's okay. We've worked these through. As a matter of fact, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I feel comfortable enough as 
chairman of the committee that you could make, Rules Committee Chairman 
Slaughter, you could make any amendment that you choose to in order, 
and I believe I have the ability and our committee has the ability to 
work forth to where we could prevail on any issue. Whereupon we found 
out no, that's not the way it's going to be.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So even the chairman of the committee said 
bring forth whatever amendments to the floor you want on the bill I 
have, and his chairman of the Rules Committee makes the decision what 
amendments come forward said uh-uh.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I'm not doing that.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And that's one of the those closed rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yeah, it was another closed rule. And I think the 
gentleman makes a point. So I think the people on the committee have 
now figured out time after time after time after time when they're 
voting for a record number of closed rules that, in fact, I wonder what 
it was they meant when they said we were going to do that? I think 
they're questioning what was the intent they said one thing but they're 
doing something else.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And you said that's still up on the Speaker's 
Web site?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Still up on the Speaker's Web site. And once again, new 
record. I think we'll have a new record virtually every time another 
rule comes out, a new record in this House that I think we have said 
openly, and the gentleman from Oregon is aware of this, that the 
Republican party has said we do recognize that there are times that you 
need to have closed rules. We support that. But if you're going to sell 
that you're about openness, then at least live up to what you say.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Do what you said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. At least live up to what you said. And it's our job to 
try and point those factors out. I would also say that there's been a 
lot of frustration because what's happened is, in this process, 
Republicans, and I believe the number is 17, perhaps 18 now, motions to 
recommit that we have been accused of coming down and sabotaging their 
political agenda.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But wait. Haven't those passed in a big 
bipartisan majority? So when one of these ideas comes to the floor, 
what you're saying is, the Republicans and Democrats actually do what 
Americans elected us to do, which was come together on issues, right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, the gentleman is correct. While there may not 
be any procedure with an open rule, there generally have been, and it's 
what Republicans always allowed, a motion to recommit. And that means 
that we were able to, or whoever's in the minority is able to say I'm 
going to take a, just a piece part of this bill and try and include our 
ideas to better the bill.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Try and make it better, right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. An example of one of these might be, let's just think 
back to a bill that might be about homeland security. And in homeland 
security, we know that there was a fight that took place that said, and 
the Democratic Party was very open about it, that they did not want to 
have Amtrak passengers to have to go through what is called Customs and 
Border Protection Database that looked at what would be like the TSA no 
fly list; in other words, someone that might be considered a terrorist 
or have terrorist ties, they would not allow any matching of a database 
against potential terrorists for anybody that used Amtrak. And so we 
said we believe that what should happen is that every single person, 
we're not talking about going in New York City, riding the subway. 
We're talking about Amtrak, that Amtrak would be allowed to have that 
database.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. To look for terrorists on a terrorist watch 
list.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We were accused of sabotaging the privacy of millions 
of Americans, accused of sabotaging their political agenda.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Sounds to me like we were most interested in 
trying to protect the security of Amtrak passengers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the gentleman is correct. In fact, it is the 
Republican Party position, and continues today with FISA, that we're 
trying to gain as much information as we can to avoid a next attack, 
not just be attacked and then figure it out.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And do the blaming.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It appears to me as though that is really the Democrat 
Party's position. The Democratic Party leadership in this House is 
trying on take away the ability that people have to be able to know to 
thwart an attack. Now, that's off the subject that we are trying to get 
into tonight, but it's germane in that these are the things that we're 
trying to do to have with motions to recommit better ideas.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, it really isn't off the subject because 
what we're talking about is freedom to speak. We're talking about free 
expression. We're talking about a fundamental right under the 
Constitution of the ability of Americans to have their elected 
officials debate issues as we're doing tonight, or to have those in the 
fourth estate, the press, be able to inform the electorate, inform 
Americans about the issues of the day and debate them vigorously. This 
is about a fundamental right in America, about free speech.
  Now, I want to share with you, because some people may be saying, 
well, where is this coming from, this fairness doctrine thing? Who's 
saying you're going to put that up? Well, a candidate for President, 
Democrat side, Representative Kucinich, Ohio, in January, according to 
a publication, said that he announced that he was going to pursue the 
fairness doctrine through his Government Reform Subcommittee. That

[[Page 27865]]

announcement was greeted with silence, but now Speaker Pelosi has moved 
things to the front burner.
  Now let me get to a quote here in the American Spectator, a newspaper 
I guess, May 14. According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, 
Reps Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them they will 
``aggressively pursue reinstatement of the so-called fairness doctrine 
over the next six months.'' That was back in May. And then there's a 
quote in something called the Liberty Papers, May 15, ``First, 
Democrats failed on the radio airwaves with America. No one wanted to 
listen,'' says the senior advisor to Pelosi. ``Conservative radio is a 
huge threat and political advantage for Republicans, and we have to 
find a way to limit it.'' This is an advisor quoted in Liberty Papers 
about that.
  Our colleague from New York, Maurice Hinchey, NPR National Public 
Radio, June 22, Representative Maurice Hinchey tells the Washington 
Times that the Democrat is planning to reintroduce a bill that calls 
for a return to the doctrine saying the American people should have a 
wide array of news sources available to them. Well, this isn't about 
news sources. This is about political and free speech on the airwaves. 
Senator Feinstein, California, says she's looking at reviving the 
fairness doctrine. That was in June in The Hill. Senator Durbin says 
it's time to reinstitute the fairness doctrine. He's the majority whip 
in the U.S. Senate. I have this old-fashioned attitude when Americans 
hear both sides of the story they're in a better position to make a 
decision. Well, yeah, that's true. But we're in a lot better position 
when you don't have government bureaucrats deciding whether or not 
you've aired all the positions.

                              {time}  2130

  And as you said, it's one thing to say you and I may disagree; so you 
get to come on and I come on. But what about our colleague from Texas, 
Dr. Burgess? He may have a little different opinion from yours and he 
still may disagree with me and there may be three or four other 
Members. As the broadcaster, you have got 30 minutes or an hour on your 
show. How many opposing viewpoints do you have to have on in order to 
satisfy the government regulators that you've the right opposing 
viewpoint? We don't need government nannies, hall monitors trying to 
figure out if we are having debate and discussion on the airwaves.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BURGESS. I have certainly enjoyed listening to the discussion 
tonight. And I just wanted to be sure I had my facts straight in 
regards to the discharge petition. You have how many signatures on the 
discharge petition now?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. The last time I checked, we were at about 140. 
We only need 218. It has only been out there for a few days.
  Mr. BURGESS. And if the gentleman would further yield, as I recall, 
when we voted on an amendment not too long ago on one of the 
appropriations bills, essentially this concept passed overwhelmingly by 
the House of Representatives; is that not correct?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, more than 300 of our 
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, said no to the funding of the 
reinstitution of the fairness doctrine.
  Mr. BURGESS. If the gentleman will further yield, is there anything 
that has happened between the passage of that amendment and the 
initiation of the discharge petition that would cause people to change 
their minds? If it was worthwhile to vote for the amendment a few weeks 
ago, wouldn't it be similarly worthwhile to go ahead and sign that 
discharge petition so we can get on with working on this very important 
legislation?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. The only thing that has happened in between is 
nothing has happened in between, including that provision is stuck in 
an appropriations bill that has never gone to the President. So there 
is no protection today; but in terms of the issue itself, nothing has 
changed. That's why we should bring this to an up-or-down vote on the 
floor. That is all we are asking is Members of the Congress of the 
House just sign the discharge petition. Just go right over there 
tomorrow and sign the discharge petition. That's all it is. If you get 
218 of 435 on this bill, under an open rule, by the way, it will come 
to the House floor and we will have a full and vigorous debate.
  Mr. BURGESS. If the gentleman will further yield, I, for the life of 
me, cannot understand why someone who would have voted in favor of the 
amendment would not follow through now and sign the discharge petition.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just have to admit I am baffled that my 
colleagues who have showed such resolution on this just a few weeks now 
be peeled off for whatever reason and not have this solid bipartisan 
legislation brought to the House floor.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for weighing 
in because it's part of why I am down here tonight to talk about the 
importance of this because, again, I think underlying everything we do 
in the country is our ability to have free speech.
  This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This isn't name your country 
with leaders that crack down when they don't like what somebody says 
out there. Look at the oppression of the free press and debate in some 
of those countries. The silencing of government critics, the fairness 
doctrine is just an inch toward that. You just keep moving toward that, 
and you get the government deciding whether you get to keep your 
broadcast license or not. I mean, this stuff is real. Leaders, frankly, 
those in the majority now on the Democrat side have said we think we 
ought to put this back in place. The majority whip of the Senate said 
that. The staff to the Speaker indicated that. A Presidential candidate 
on the Democrat side has indicated that this needs to be done. And I 
just think you don't go down that path.
  Now, this, again, is not a conservative or liberal fight. Free speech 
should never be a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. Protecting free 
speech should never be a Republican or Democrat issue. That's why 
signing the petition to bring this protection to the floor should not 
be a Republican or Democrat issue. We should be doing this in a 
bipartisan way, and 300 Members of this House voted for it already in 
effect. So I don't know what the hang-up would be. Perhaps they are not 
aware the petition is available. Perhaps if Members don't happen to be 
down here tonight and there is not a full House tonight but they may be 
watching, maybe others are, we can encourage them to sign the petition 
tomorrow.
  I want to tell you too in this context that it is liberal viewpoints 
and conservative that believe that we should pass H.R. 2905 and are 
opposed to the fairness doctrine. In a 2003 interview on Public 
Broadcasting's ``NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,'' well-known liberal talk 
show host Alan Colmes said: ``Modern-day talk radio would not thrive if 
there were a fairness doctrine and the bureaucratic nightmare that's 
involved in the kind of paperwork you need to do that. The free market 
should be the arbiter of what flies on talk radio . . . that's where I 
want to make it, and not because I have government help to do so.'' 
Alan Colmes, not necessarily a conservative on talk radio and TV. A 
liberal, and that's fine.
  In 2007, on his own program, ``Hannity and Colmes,'' Mr. Colmes 
wholeheartedly agreed with a guest's comment that radio hosts simply 
chose not to talk about controversial issues on the air when the 
fairness doctrine was in place.
  As managing editor and anchor of CBS News, a man well known across 
America, Dan Rather, said: ``I can recall newsroom conversations about 
what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. 
Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency 
will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an 
invaluable element of freedom has been lost.'' Dan Rather.

[[Page 27866]]

  Former FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick, who served on the commission 
between 1987 and 1989, his remarks on the fairness doctrine appeared in 
the Wall Street Journal's opinion page this summer, and he said: 
``Reimposing `fairness regulation' would be a colossal mistake. The 
world without the fairness doctrine features exponentially more 
discussion of public issues from contrasting perspectives. The robust 
diversity of the blogosphere and the ideological rivalry among 
competing cable news channels all speak to the advantage of permitting 
the marketplace of ideas to make its own editorials FCC-free.''
  These are reasons, colleagues, that you should go over here tomorrow 
morning when the House reconvenes and sign the discharge petition. It's 
a real simple thing to do. You sign twice. You initial once, sign once. 
When 218 Members sign that under an open rule, we will bring to the 
House floor for an up-or-down vote this bill, H.R. 2905, which would 
prevent the government regulators on their own, without an act of 
Congress, from reinstituting censorship of the public's airwaves. This 
bill will stop that. And my friend Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana, 
and I both, who have spent time in the broadcast industry, encourage 
you to do this.
  Again, more than 300 Members of the U.S. House voted to prohibit the 
FCC from using funds to reinstate the fairness doctrine; and 113 of the 
309 that stood up for freedom during a vote on the Pence amendment were 
Democrats. So we know that there are 113 Members on this side of the 
aisle who have already voted against reinstituting the fairness 
doctrine, in fact, voted to make sure no money was spent by the agency 
to reinstitute the fairness doctrine. So just one of you, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
20, we will take 20 Members, sign it, and this will come to the floor.
  Only one Democrat has cosponsored this bill. Every single Republican 
is a cosponsor of this legislation. One Democrat has, and we appreciate 
that and we welcome more Members from the Democrat side, the party that 
often speaks on this floor about protecting civil rights and speech. 
Help us protect free speech over the public's airwaves by both 
cosponsoring H.R. 2905 and by signing the discharge petition. A 
petition, that's all it is, just the petition to bring it to the floor. 
Even if you don't happen to support the bill, H.R. 2905, the 
Broadcaster Freedom Act, sign the discharge petition. We are bringing 
this issue up under an open rule. You can offer up an alternative. You 
can offer up several alternatives. That's what America should be about 
is the ability to offer up alternatives on this floor among Members of 
Congress who are elected by the people to get the people's work done. 
Not to take away their rights, not to take away their free speech 
rights, not to be the nanny that tunes their radio for them, but rather 
to protect these fundamental constitutional rights that men and women 
who have worn our Nation's uniform have shed blood and died to protect 
and preserve so that we, this generation, would have the ability to 
continue to debate issues. And as annoying as that can be to some, 
depending upon your viewpoint on the issue, it should never be annoying 
that we protect this right. This is a fundamental right of America and 
Americans to be able to debate, discuss, without government 
interference, the political issues of the day.
  And by their nature, if they are interesting, they are probably 
controversial. And if they are controversial, they probably do need to 
be debated, and out of that debate we will have a better outcome. We 
will all learn from listening to the opposing viewpoints. But we won't 
hear any of it if the fairness doctrine is back in place because we saw 
what happened between 1949 and 1987. There was no talk radio to speak 
of, certainly not vigorous talk radio.
  And I am not saying you have to agree with Alan Colmes. I'm not 
saying you have to agree with Lars Larson or Rush Limbaugh or Sean 
Hannity. In fact, you can pick what you want. But do you really want to 
leave in place the opportunity for Federal regulators, without a vote 
of this Chamber, to put back in place a flawed regulation that we know 
chills free speech, that reduces speech on political issues at all? Do 
you want to leave that opening there for the next administration to 
have three commissioners of the five make that decision for you, three 
unelected commissioners? And I respect them all, believe me, but that 
is not how government should work on an issue as critical as free 
speech and protecting free speech rights.
  So I encourage you tonight to think about it. Think about it. Think 
about those who have come before us, about those who have worn 
America's uniform to protect our free speech rights, and ask yourself 
how hard is it to walk right over here and sign the petition to allow 
an up-or-down vote on protecting free speech rights on America's radio 
and television broadcast stations?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address 
our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives. I 
encourage them once again to sign the petition, bring H.R. 2905 to the 
floor, the Broadcaster Freedom Act. Protect the free speech rights of 
even those talk show hosts you vehemently disagree with because 
silencing those hosts is the worst thing the government could do.
  The material I previously referred to follows:

         Federal Communications Commission, Office of the 
           Chairman,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Walden: Thank you for your letter asking 
     for my thoughts on the present-day appropriateness of the 
     Fairness Doctrine. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Fairness 
     Doctrine obliged broadcasters to provide an opportunity for 
     the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those 
     controversial issues of public importance that they covered. 
     See In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council, 2 FCC Rcd 5043 
     (1987).
       In 1987, based on its 1985 Report on the Fairness Doctrine, 
     Inquiry into Section 73.1910 of the Commission's Rules and 
     Regulations Concerning Alternatives to the General Fairness 
     Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 FCC 2d 145 
     (1985), and an extensive subsequent administrative record, 
     the Commission concluded that enforcement of the Fairness 
     Doctrine was not in the public interest and thus decided to 
     abandon it.
       Among other things, the Commission found that the doctrine 
     ```chill[ed]' speech'' by ``provid[ing] broadcasters with a 
     powerful incentive not to air controversial programming above 
     [a] minimal amount'' in order to avoid burdensome litigation 
     over whether it had complied with its obligation to provide 
     contrasting viewpoints. 2 FCC Rcd at 5049 para.para. 42, 43. 
     Based on its examination of the record, the Commission 
     concluded that the Fairness Doctrine had created ``a climate 
     of timidity and fear, which deter[red] the coverage of 
     controversial issue programming.'' Id. at para. 47. Indeed, 
     the record compiled by the Commission at the time included 
     over 60 reported instances in which the Fairness Doctrine had 
     inhibited broadcasters' coverage of controversial issues. Id. 
     at para. 43.
       Furthermore, the Commission determined that the doctrine 
     ``inherently provide[d] incentives that are more favorable to 
     the expression of orthodox and well-established opinion with 
     respect to controversial issues than to less established 
     viewpoints.'' Id. at para. 45. Because broadcasters espousing 
     provocative opinions were more likely to be subject to a 
     Fairness Doctrine challenge, the Commission concluded that 
     the doctrine, in operation, inhibited the goal of ensuring 
     that the public had access to innovative and less popular 
     viewpoints. Indeed, the Commission expressed concern that the 
     doctrine ``provide[d] a dangerous vehicle--which has been 
     exercised in the past--for the intimidation of broadcasters 
     who criticize government policy.'' Id. at para. 54. Finally, 
     the Commission concluded that government regulation was not 
     necessary to ensure that the public had access to a wide 
     range of opinion on controversial issues of the day in light 
     of the multiplicity of information sources available to the 
     public, such as television stations, radio stations, daily 
     newspapers, and cable television services. See id. at 
     para.para. 55-56.
       In reviewing the Commission's decision to abandon the 
     Fairness Doctrine, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit determined that the Commission's 
     findings were supported by the record, and upheld the 
     Commission's determination that the fairness doctrine no 
     longer served the public interest. See Syracuse Peace Council 
     v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 
     1019 (1990).
       In my judgment, the events of the last two decades have 
     confirmed the wisdom of the

[[Page 27867]]

     Commission's decision to abolish the Fairness Doctrine. 
     Discussion of controversial issues over the airwaves has 
     flourished absent regulatory constraints, and the public now 
     enjoys access to an ever-expanding range of views and 
     opinions. Indeed, with the continued proliferation of 
     additional sources of information and programming, including 
     satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the 
     Fairness Doctrine has lessened ever further since 1987. In 
     short, I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness 
     Doctrine in today's broadcast environment, and believe that 
     such a step would inhibit the robust discussion of issues of 
     public concern over the nation's airwaves.
       I appreciate your interest in this important matter. Please 
     do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide further 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kevin J. Martin,
     Chairman.

                          ____________________