Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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?

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.

Which means shutting down debate, shutting down amendments, limiting all of us.

I appreciate the gentleman coming, speaking this evening on the floor of the House. The gentleman from Texas has done fine work in the Rules Committee and stood up in a valiant fight. But you're outnumbered there two to one by the Democrats, correct?

It's pretty hard to get bipartisanship there if it's always a 9-4 vote, isn't it?

And has the gentleman seen lots of open rules on major policy issues?

Does the gentleman believe that that brings disrespect on this House for----

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.

And that's one of the those closed rules.

And you said that's still up on the Speaker's Web site?

Do what you said.

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?

Try and make it better, right?

To look for terrorists on a terrorist watch list.

Sounds to me like we were most interested in trying to protect the security of Amtrak passengers.

And do the blaming.

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 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.

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.

I would be happy to yield.

The last time I checked, we were at about 140. We only need 218. It has only been out there for a few days.

Reclaiming my time, more than 300 of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, said no to the funding of the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine.

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. 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 six 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Actually a little bit more than two to one. It's 9 to 4, so it is a bit more.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not doing that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We were accused of sabotaging the privacy of millions of Americans, accused of sabotaging their political agenda.

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.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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?

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?

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?

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.

The time has come to do away with the Fairness Doctrine once and for all. The Broadcaster Freedom Act that I introduced this summer would ensure that no future President could regulate the airwaves of America without an act of Congress. But it is yet to be scheduled for a vote.

Moments ago, along with the full Republican leadership and Congressman Greg Walden, I filed a discharge petition on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

The American people should know that if 218 Members of Congress sign this petition, we can demand an up-or-down vote on legislation that would keep the so-called Fairness Doctrine from ever coming back. I say to my colleagues, if you oppose the Fairness Doctrine, sign the petition. If you cherish the national asset of American talk radio, sign the petition. But if you simply believe that broadcast freedom deserves an up-or-down vote on the floor of the people's House, sign the petition.

Because when freedom gets an up-or-down vote on the people's House floor,

freedom always wins. I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition for H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act.