Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3852 extends the construction period for a hydroelectric project in the State of Alabama. Under section 13 of the Federal Power Act, project construction must begin within 4 years of issuance of the license. If construction has not yet begun, FERC cannot extend the deadline and must terminate the license. H.R. 3852 grants the project developer up to 6 additional years to commence construction if it pursues the commencement of construction in good faith and with due diligence. These types of bills have not been controversial in the past. The bill does not change the license requirements in any way and does not change environmental standards, but merely extends the construction deadline. There is a need to act, Mr. Speaker, since the construction deadline for the George Andrews project expires in September. If Congress does not act, FERC will terminate the license, the project owner will lose its investment in the project, and the local community will lose jobs and revenues. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 3852. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3852) to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alabama.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1236 extends the construction period for the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho. Under section 13 of the Federal Power Act, project construction must begin within 4 years of issuance of the license. If construction has not begun by that time, FERC cannot extend the deadline and must terminate the license. S. 1236 authorizes the FERC to grant the project owner up to 6 additional years to commence construction in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of section 13 of the Federal Power Act. These types of bills have not been controversial in the past. The bill does not change the license requirements in any way and does not change environmental standards but merely extends the construction deadline. The construction deadline for the project expired in March 1999; and, unless Congress acts, FERC will terminate the license, the project owner will lose its investment, and the local community will lose jobs and revenues. I note this project already received a legislative extension in 1992. For that reason, the committee expects that FERC will vigorously apply the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of the Federal Power Act. If FERC determines that the owner is no longer pursuing project construction in good faith and with due diligence, the agency should refuse to issue further extensions in the construction deadline. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of S. 1236. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1236) to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for commencement of the construction of the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of H.R. 4205 and thank Chairman Spence, Ranking Member Skelton, and the Armed Services Committee for the great work in putting together this legislation. They are to be commended for expertly balancing our national security interests with very unforgiving budget constraints. Even though the Army, in my opinion, has shortsightedly threatened the superiority of our heavy forces by terminating the Heavy Assault Bridge program, the Committee is wisely supporting the bridge and the most superior tank in the world, the M1A2 Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tank is a major component of the Army's heavy forces and will remain so through the year 2020. I am pleased the committee matches the President's request of $512.8 for M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks. The committee also recommends $55 million ($18.9 million more than the President's request) for M1 Abrams tank modifications. The Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB) is a mobile bridge deployable in five minutes, retrievable in less than ten minutes, and can support 70-ton vehicles. Like the Grizzly Breacher, the President's budget terminated this program to pay for Army Transformation efforts, even though Congress has provided multi-year procurement authority and additional funds for HAB in recent years. It is the top unfunded modernization requirement of the Chief of Staff of the Army for fiscal year 2001. To restore this program, the committee recommends $59.2 million for 12 HABs and $13.1 million for advance procurement of HABs in fiscal year 2002. I urge all my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to spotlight a very special individual who has unselfishly given his time, energy, and spirit to others in the Fourth Congressional District of Ohio. The month of June will pose many challenges to Findlay High School since it will be losing a top notch teacher and educator to a well-deserved retirement. His shoes will be very difficult to fill. Al Bell has taught at Findlay High, my alma mater, in Findlay, Ohio since 1964. It is not every high school that can boast of a teacher who has taught there for 36 years. Over the years I have witnessed how Al cares very deeply for his high school community family. For twelve years. Al has instructed and guided his students to state and national awards for their accomplishments in the We the People . . . competition. He has served eleven years as the History Department chair at FHS. Al sat on the Strategic Planning Committee for Technology and the Selection Committee for the Robert H. Hill Award for Findlay City Schools. Al has served in all aspects of academic life. He has been a teacher, advisor, scholar, international consultant and mentor. He knows inside and out how to guide a school to academic success and national recognition. The Center for Civic Education has also recognized that Al's academic strength and professionalism can benefit those around the world. He has served in both consultative and editorial roles for the Center. The Center has twice selected Al to travel to war-torn Bosnia to help educate Bosnian teachers on the virtues and benefits of democracy and how to impart this knowledge to young Bosnians. Al Bell is a peacekeeper in his own right. Though he will no longer work as a teacher for FHS, he will never be far from it in mind and spirit. The inspiration to ``think'' is perhaps one of his greatest legacies which lives on in those blessed enough to have known him. To Al and his wife, Judy, all the best as they approach this new adventure of retirement together.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the outstanding achievements of a group of student scholars from my hometown high school in Findlay, Ohio. On May 6-8, 2000 more than 1200 students from across the United States will be in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Findlay High School will represent the state of Ohio in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder described the national final as ``the place to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. Findlay High is currently researching and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, D.C. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People . . . national finals. It is always my pleasure meeting with these students and their instructors. Their quest for knowledge coupled with their interest in our government is to be applauded.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be pleased to work with the gentleman in the conference on that very issue.

Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for pointing this out. The legislation before us deals primarily with safeguarding the existing full-power FM stations against interference from low-power stations. Let me say to the gentlewoman from New Jersey that we will address that in the conference committee. I can assure you that nothing in this bill is intended to create a disadvantage for any existing broadcaster or for radio service to any community. I recognize the importance of local radio in providing timely news and information, particularly emergency information and would be happy to work with you as this legislation moves forward. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the entire colloquy be made a part of the Record.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I want to join the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, in expressing my concern also for some of the overt lobbying that is going on from the FCC regarding this issue. Virtually every Member of Congress has received this information from the FCC, which says, ``10 Reasons to Support Low Power FM Radio Service and to Oppose H.R. 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000.'' This, basically, is lobbying no matter how we paint it and it is clearly, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) pointed out, against the law. This is something very, very serious when an independent agency can try to influence and ask for opposition to a particular piece of legislation. But not only did they talk about the 10 reasons to oppose my bill, but then they added a letter from a labor union, the Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Legislative Alert, saying, ``Oppose the Legislation. Oppose the Oxley Bill.'' I do not think I can see any time in the 20 years I have been here a more blatant attempt to lobby this body by a so-called independent agency. It is an absolute outrage. I support the chairman for what he is trying to do in his referral to the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, when we teach our children about good behavior, we teach them not to interfere with what other people are doing. We teach them not to step on other people's toes. And there is a lesson there for us today as we consider the direction of the low-power FM program. The Chairman of the FCC, Mr. Kennard says he created this new, low- power FM licensing program to add new voices to radio. Well, that is great. And I will enjoy the option of having more choices in radio. And clearly, many of us on the committee supported the advent of low-power television. It has been a huge success. But we also have to consider what happens to the incumbent stations, those people who have made an investment, many times their life savings, in a small radio station and what happens when those new stations may be developed impinge on their signal. First, to address the so-called diversity issue, have my colleagues ever heard such a wonderful cacophony of voices that we hear in this democracy? Have we ever had more information, more kinds of media, or more outlets for our views? Anyone who takes an objective look must conclude that our country is rich in information and rich in public debate, as it should be. So we are looking to add choices, not to subtract them. Remember, we are seeking to add choices in the consumers market without interfering with other existing services. What our bill sought to do, clearly and concisely as I can say, was to say to the FCC, before they run full speed ahead in granting these licenses, make certain that the interference standards are adhered to, the interference standards of long tradition. It is clear to me by the order of the FCC that they have ignored these requirements of making certain that we have a solid and significant sound for these people. The private studies that have raised the questions time and time again have indicated that the growth of these stations in some areas may very well impinge upon viewers' ability to listen to these new voices and to the old voices, as well. Clearly, there is enough evidence against the FCC's actions to be concerned. And that is why we have asked for this study. People are attached to their radios. I grew up listening to the Detroit Tigers baseball games, as the gentleman from Massachusetts well knows. I think that every person has a right to listen to that particular broadcast without fear of being overrun by another signal. Who would be harmed? Let us take a look at who would be harmed. I was initially contacted before I introduced this bill by several locally-owned radio stations in my district, one in particular, WDOH in Delphos, Ohio, an independent, locally owned station very proud to serve the needs of that community. Yet, these are the kinds of stations that the chairman of the FCC says he wants to encourage and they would be clearly vulnerable to interference. NPR is concerned about its member station and says that crowding leaves it vulnerable to interference. Kevin Klose said yesterday in a letter to the editor that the reading services for the sight-impaired are threatened. This, of course, would be the case for thousands and thousands of radio stations across the country. So I think we have to be very careful as to how we proceed and the FCC proceeds. This bill allows the FCC to proceed with a low-power program. It insists that the Commission reinstitute the third-channel protections that are so important for current broadcasters and listening services and requires the FCC to conduct a pilot study on the impact on the study of radio broadcast and radio listeners. It directs the FCC to place low-power radio in areas where there is plenty of room on the FM dial. This is solid legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me first indicate this bill was reported by the committee in a bipartisan voice vote. It was an amendment that we finally came to with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leading the way, that really set out, I think, the parameters of what this program is all about. It allows the LPFM to go forward in areas where it does not infringe on existing interference protections: in a lot of rural areas, in the New Mexico example, in many areas of the country that are underserved by FM radio. We bent over backwards to make certain that that could go forward. Then we also said, but it is important in these areas that potentially have interference problems to have a pilot study done and find out once and for all whether in fact these interference standards are adequate, or whether in fact the incumbent radio stations will have problems with interference and their listeners will have interference with that. This is really what this argument is all about. The Barrett amendment undercuts the purpose of this legislation by allowing the commission to go forward with full implementation of its lower-power FM rule, including the weakening of interference protections following the pilot program regardless of what the results of that program are. So we are saying there is the FCC. The Barrett amendment simply says, do not confuse us with the facts. No matter how that pilot program comes out, one can go forward just as one is going forward now. Now, there is a certain reason why congressional intent is important, and that is why we are debating this today. Is it really realistic to have an FCC, an unelected Federal bureaucracy, a so-called independent agency set these kinds of important standards against the obvious intent of the Congress? I do not think so. The amendment allows the FCC to proceed with its rule as currently ordered, unless Congress enacts legislation to overturn this in a 6- month period. Well, I have perhaps a little less faith in the alacrity with which this Congress could act or any Congress could act perhaps than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett). As a matter of fact, everybody knows that in this town it is a lot easier to play defense than it is to play offense. So my colleagues are asking the Congress to pass a bill that would or would not be vetoed by the President in that 6-month period. We do not know whether that happens or not. But to allow the FCC to go forward with the test and then, say, essentially thumb their nose at the test results and move forward with granting these licenses is the height of irresponsibility. So I would ask the Members to defeat this Barrett amendment, to support the bipartisan compromise that was crafted so well in this committee, and understand that this bill came out on a bipartisan voice vote in the Committee on Commerce with strong support on both sides of the aisle. Let us defeat the Barrett amendment and get to the real issue here, which is protecting incumbent stations from potential interference from these new low-powered FM stations.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I commend the courageous acts of Chasity Snyder, a heroine from Lima, OH. Her extraordinary act of bravery can serve as an inspiration to us all. [From People Magazine, March 27, 2000] Small Marvel Afloat on her Yellow Jacket, Chas Snyder, 11, saves a pair of canoeists in peril. It was one of those delightfully warm days that can fool the winter-weary into thinking the worst is over. So in Lima, Ohio, homemaker Cherie Snyder took her daughter Chasity, 11, down to the reservoir on March 6 to see if they could hook a few fish. Meanwhile, James H. Moore Sr., 36, a delivery driver, and Aaron Schafer, 22, a roofer, had already launched Moore's newly patched canoe on a test run. But the two men were about 25 yards from shore when the canoe started to roll. They jumped--without life jackets--into water so frigid that swimming was nearly impossible. Spotting the men struggling, Snyder, 30, waded in to try to save them, but quickly retreated because of the cold. That's when Chas sprang into action. ``I said, `Chas, no!' '' recalls her mother. But Chas shouted, ``Mom, I have to! I've got to do something!'' and then shed her yellow winter jacket and leaped in. Using the jacket as a flotation device she paddled out to Moore, who had slipped below the surface, and dragged him to where he could touch bottom. ``I had floaties when I was little,'' says Chas, and explains that the jacket looked similar. Chas then helped Lynn Wallace, 41, who was on an afternoon walk, rescue Schafer. ``If that little girl hadn't been there,'' Moore says of Chas, ``I would be in the funeral home.'' Back home after the rescue, Chas, who lives with Cherie and her four siblings, says she never doubted she could help the men: ``My guardian angel and God gave me courage and told me I could do it and nothing would happen to me.''

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House chamber for roll call votes held the evening of Monday, April 10. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 282, H. Con. Res. 228, and S. 777.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I urge the House to pass H.R. 1089, the Mutual Fund Tax Awareness Act of 2000. In some form or another, 83 million Americans, or one in every other household, are invested in mutual funds. While many are invested in tax deferred accounts, through pensions, IRA's, or other retirement vehicles, millions are invested in taxable mutual funds. That is, on a yearly basis, these shareholders must pay ordinary income and capital gains taxes on distributions they receive from their mutual funds. Yet when present or prospective shareholders review annual fund performance results in annual reports or prospectuses, the rates of return listed do not account for the impact of taxes. This should not be the case. Given that the average fund loses almost three percentage points from their listed rates of return due to taxes, investors should be presented with information about how much money they got to keep, not how much money they received before paying the tax man. Only then will investors better be able to invest in mutual funds which best suit their needs. To respond to this problem our colleague, Mr. Gillmor, drafted this legislation before the House today. Among other things, this bill would require the SEC to revise their regulations to require that mutual fund companies list performance figures on an after-tax basis. While it is impossible to predict precisely the tax impact for every shareholder-- because taxpayers are subject to differing federal and state tax rates due to their incomes--the information to be presented is highly informative nonetheless. Such information will allow shareholders to determine which funds are more tax efficient, enabling investors with tax concerns to opt for funds which best suit their tax needs. Federal securities law has always focused on disclosure, and that is the objective of this bill. By providing investors with better information about their funds, investors will be empowered. I know that Mr. Gillmor has worked with the SEC in developing this legislation, and that the SEC has responded on their own by issuing a proposed regulations which aims to do what the Gillmor bill does. It is important to pass the legislation before the House today to ensure that the final SEC rule is promulgated by a date certain. I know of no opposition to this bill, and I urge the support of the House.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the full committee, who has shown immense leadership in this issue and one that we have dealt with for a number of years. I did not realize it was 1983 when the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) first introduced his legislation. But in the true spirit of the Committee on Commerce, we were able to craft a compromise that will truly change the satellite industry for the better based on competition, new technologies, and breaking up the last monopoly, as my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said. So my hat is off to the chairman on his efforts in this very important piece of legislation, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and Senator Burns and others on the Senate side for bringing us to where we are tonight. There were times when I did not think we were going to be successful in our efforts. Too many times this bill reached a Sisyphus proportions where we were perhaps doomed to roll that rock up the proverbial mountain and have it rolled back, as my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) reminds us so many times on some of these pieces of legislation. But I guess if it was easy, we would have done it long ago. And so our hats are off to the chairman; and as he is a retiring Member, this will be perceived as one of his greatest triumphs for our committee and for the entire country and for this he is to be congratulated. So I thank everyone involved with this.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would again thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their strong leadership on this issue. In closing, I would only point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have had two discussions with the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who is a cosponsor, and he has indicated his strong desire to move this bill through normal procedures and through the Committee on Commerce and on to the floor of the House. So we are pleased that we have a powerful ally in the majority leader, and he feels as we do, that we cannot let this issue die, but must move forward. We are indeed the duly-elected representatives of the people, not an independent agency. We make policy, they follow the policy. When they do not follow the policy, we make certain that the laws are clear as to how they will proceed. I again thank everyone for their attention and for their good work on this issue.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for his continuing leadership on this. It is now my pleasure to call upon our good colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Committee on Commerce and a leader on many broadcast issues.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House regarding the issue of religious freedom and religious broadcasting. A little bit of background, if I could. This whole issue began on December 29 when the Federal Communications Commission in a decision based on a license swap, a license swap in this case in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, between a commercial broadcasting station and a non- commercial broadcasting station. In this case the religious broadcaster was seeking to swap their commercial license for a non-commercial license, something that, by the way, is rather routine at the Federal Communications Commission. When the license swap came up, the FCC allowed the swap, but said that, based on their opinion, the religious broadcaster, who was going to have the non-commercial license, that they needed additional guidance in regard to their religious broadcasting and whether that religious broadcasting fell under the requirement that the majority of programming be educational or cultural. This was a little noticed opinion in license swap, except that some very alert member of my staff was able to find this decision and in fact brought it to my attention. The more we looked into it, the more that we thought it was rather odd that on a 3 to 2 vote in the FCC, that is the three Democrat appointees, including the chairman, voted in favor of these what I think can only be described as limitations or restrictions on religious broadcasting, whereas the two Republican members voted against, that it raised some serious questions as to whether the FCC majority did indeed have an agenda that was not in the best interests of religious broadcasting. Now, over the years in non-commercial licenses, religious broadcasting had prima facia met the requirements of educational and cultural under their programming, and this was never an issue, and it was not until this issue came up in this license swap over the holidays that it really did raise some serious questions. I was so concerned about it, Mr. Speaker, that I, during the recess, before the Congress adjourned again in January, started drafting legislation that would reverse the FCC decision and also required that when the FCC was going to make this severe policy change, that they had to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, have these hearings in the open, have public comment, just like they would do with any other issue that comes before them as a ``independent'' agency. That really became kind of a rallying cry then for Members of Congress. For the religious broadcasting community, the millions of people who listen to religious broadcasting and watch religious broadcasting, it became a very big issue with them, as you might guess. It was not until our bill was introduced, initially with about I think 65 cosponsors, which is not bad considering the fact that Congress was not in session, and we are now up to I think 120 cosponsors for my legislation, and I will get into that a little bit later, but as the bill was introduced and it started drawing some attention throughout the country and I was inundated with phone calls and E-mails. I might point out that, Mr. Speaker, this is a compilation of all of the E-mails that I have received to date at least that are supportive of our legislation and are very concerned about the role of religious freedom and religious broadcasting freedom in this country. I think it is quite remarkable, I had exactly two folks give me E- mails against the legislation. One of those opposed, and I quote, referred to ``superstitious nonsense,'' and then he put in parentheses ``religion.'' So apparently at least one person opposed to our position considers religion ``superstitious nonsense.'' I think that says a lot about where people are coming from in this country and the vast majority of Americans who have spoken loudly and clearly on this issue, so much so apparently that the FCC started to hear from people out there. They heard from Members of Congress, they heard about my bill, and, in a matter of a couple or three weeks, actually vacated that order by, in this case, a 4 to 1 vote. So the FCC basically I think realized they had erred, not only from a constitutional standpoint, but certainly a procedural standpoint, in changing the policy as it related to religious broadcasting, and thought perhaps that they would, by vacating the order, turn down the heat a little bit. Part of the reason I wanted to ask the opportunity to speak on the floor is to make certain that people understand that we are not going to let this issue die by any means, because there are some real issues at stake here, one of which is I wonder what is the real agenda for the FCC truly. As a matter of fact, the only Commissioner to vote against the reversal of the FCC decision, Commissioner Tristani, said in her dissent that she would continue to act as if the additional guidance were still in effect. Since it was duly overturned by the FCC as a commission, I would say that is quite an outrageous statement. She said, ``I, for one, will continue to cast my vote in accordance with the views expressed in the additional guidance.'' So despite the fact that the Commission realized the error of its ways, at least one Commissioner has gone public in basically saying that she wants to make certain that the religious broadcasters have to jump through certain hoops to be able to have their license. That really raises a question, Mr. Speaker, as to if the FCC is talking about content, and they clearly are, and in their order, their initial order they said that you have to understand that part of your programming, half of your programming, has to be educational or cultural, and, by the way, religious services, for example, do not fall into that category. Now, for people who are shut-ins, who are unable to go to church on Sunday or any other time, to be able to see religious broadcasting on television is truly a lifeline for these people, and the majority initially of the FCC and Commissioner Tristani basically says that you could not be able to do that, and, by the way, somebody has to decide what that content is; somebody has to decide what educational and cultural requirements are met. That would be, of course, the FCC. Well, that puts the FCC up against the First Amendment. There was a reason why the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the very core of what it means to live in this country. It was not the Second Amendment, it was not the Eighth Amendment, this was the First Amendment. I think it is important that we stress that when we talk about this effort by the FCC. So despite the fact that they vacated the order, I am convinced that there is still an agenda over at the FCC and why it is important that we move forward with the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act that I have introduced, along with 120 other of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to pay tribute to my original cosponsors, and two of them are here with us today and will be speaking momentarily, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and a member of the Committee on Commerce; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a leader in broadcasting issues throughout his career here in the Congress. They will both be speaking as well on this issue. I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), all initial sponsors of this bill, and ones who enjoined the Oxley Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act in response to their constituents calling and asking that they do so. Before I yield the floor, I would like to, if I can, Mr. Speaker, just quote from a few of the e-mails I have received from all over the country. I think it gives a little bit of flavor of where people are coming from on this issue. This one: ``Thanks for upholding the First Amendment.'' This one: ``You spoke to the millions of people all over this country who believe that the expressions of the churches and synagogues do indeed serve the needs of communities in this great country.'' Another one: ``So little is left on the air for families to sit down and watch together, and now the FCC wants to take that away as well. Your efforts and those of several others in Congress will go a long way to protect the freedoms we all enjoy and sometimes take for granted.'' Well spoken. Another: ``Those such as myself that are disabled and cannot attend church services rely on radio and television broadcasts. They are so very important.'' Another one: ``What I find disturbing is the notion that this ruling opens the door for someone somewhere to make decisions about what is and what is not acceptable speech on religious topics. One man's proselytizing is another's evangelizing. How ironic that while those hostile to faith are madly trying to protect the right to express or view any vile thing on the Internet, they find this programming so offensive that they want to suppress it.'' Americans can be remarkably prescient and articulate when they are offended by some of government's decisions. Another one: ``My mother, who is 87 years young, faithfully listens to the religious programs each day and every day, and this would have been a tremendous loss if they were deleted from the airwaves. Certainly, religious broadcasting serves to meet the educational, instructional and cultural needs of America. If we lose this freedom, what next?'' Another one: ``In a land where we often hear of the need for tolerance, Christianity is being less and less tolerated. If society truly believed in tolerance, they would have to include tolerance for Christianity. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and government and that the government should not establish religion, but to me, that means the government should not be hostile to religion or do things to hinder the free exercise of religion. The recent actions of the FCC clearly were the government taking a prejudicial position against religion.'' This final one: ``I am weary of the FCC thinking they have the authority to tax and change policy on a whim.'' That gives my colleagues an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the support that people have given us out there, and I am sure that other Members have their own stories to tell as well. With that, let me recognize, in their order of appearance, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hall), who has been one of our stalwarts on the Committee on Commerce. This is a bipartisan effort, and I do want to recognize my friend from Texas for his remarks.