Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PENCE. There is no question that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is a tough act to follow, but I appreciate his decorum, his demeanor and always his candor on this floor. But let me reassure him and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the bipartisan vote that I expect will be recorded today will be an encouragement to people on the right, to people on the left, and people in the center, people in front of microphones and people listening to those people on microphones because this House will say what some in the other body are not saying, and that is, we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the archaic doctrines of the past that would have this Federal Government manage political speech on the public airwaves. It is time that we come together as a Nation, we move past the archaic rules of broadcasting fashioned for a Depression-era America, and we embrace the dynamic national conversation that is the American media today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his support of this amendment. And I also wish to thank the gentleman from New York for accepting this amendment. I believe what we will do in this legislation will demonstrate a bipartisan commitment to freedom on the airwaves at a time that intemperate remarks are being made by others in Washington, D.C., both within the Capitol Building and within the punditocracy that surrounds this Capitol Building. This Congress in bipartisan numbers, and I trust the numbers will be large, will say ``yes'' to freedom on the airwaves, ``yes'' to the freedom of expression, and ``yes'' to the freedom of the press. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the ``unfairness doctrine'' and vote ``aye'' on the Pence amendment on behalf of my colleagues Jeff Flake and Jeb Hensarling.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a force of nature on the House floor, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Tom Price.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished and eloquent gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. PENCE. With gratitude to the Republican leader for his eloquent remarks, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the United States House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, and to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I appreciate both the tone and the good natured aspects of his remarks. But I say very seriously when he asked the question rhetorically, he says you act as though there's something you would stand to lose. Our view is, despite the gentleman's assurances that I completely accept as sincere, what we stand to lose is freedom. We have some of the most prominent and powerful Members of this Congress stepping forward and calling for the regulation of free speech on the air waves of America using this archaic doctrine dubbed as the fairness doctrine. And today, with the support of the majority, we will send a deafening message that not on our watch will that occur. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a former broadcaster, distinguished member of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden of Oregon.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. PENCE. I think the gentleman from Ohio knows how much I respect his liberal passion and often feel it mirrors my conservative passion, but let me emphasize and agree with his final point. It is precisely about the next administration that many here in this Chamber and many here in America are concerned with leaving in the Federal Communications Commission the resources or the authority to reregulate the public airwaves. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my partner in this amendment, the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Jeb Hensarling.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, first let me acknowledge my gratitude that the chairman of this subcommittee will accept this amendment and has endorsed it on the floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my partner in this amendment, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today, along with my partners in this amendment, Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, very much in a spirit of bipartisanship. We come to the floor in this moment, on this amendment, to be about that, which I think we are all about. The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press is not a partisan issue in this Congress. We all live under and cherish that first amendment that says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. I, myself, Mr. Chairman, have worked in a bipartisan way in this Congress to fashion legislation that ensures a free and independent press. The amendment before this body today is simply an extension of that mission. Our legislation would simply say that none of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in 1985. Now, the Fairness Doctrine actually came to pass in 1949, part of a regulation of a much older law. It required broadcasters to prevent controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. That sounds reasonable enough. But because of the lack of clarity in the regulation, in the commission's rulings, broadcasters, during almost four decades, often opted not to offer any controversial programming whatsoever. The FCC concluded that, in fact, by 1985, this regulation was having a chilling effect on the public debate and repealed it effective 1987. Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio particularly has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and, I offer, an asset to the Nation. Our amendment, simply put, is an effort to maintain the status quo, to prevent this administration and this Federal Communications Commission, in this fiscal year about which we are debating, to use no funds to return the Fairness Doctrine. Now, I want to acknowledge the fact that there are some who are skeptical about the need for this amendment. I have heard distinguished and respected Members of this body come to this floor and say that this is, quote, an issue which does not exist, and have seen writing, and I expect we will hear rhetoric to that effect, and I will respect the words of each person that utters that view, but I will differ. Just for example, in the last 2 days, the Senate majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin, said, ``It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.'' That was yesterday. In the last several days, the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said she was looking at reviving the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrat nominee for the President of the United States in 2004, the distinguished Senator John Kerry, said, ``I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there,'' and he went on to say, ``I also think the equal time doctrine ought to come back.'' Most recently, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, published an entire report on what it called the ``structural imbalance of political talk radio.'' So you will forgive me if many of us sense there is afoot in the Nation's Capital a bit of a cool breeze on the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression on the airwaves. So we seize this opportunity in the appropriations process, with my partners, Jeff Flake and Jeb Hensarling, and hopefully a bipartisan majority in this Congress, to say yes to freedom and to reject, in this fiscal year, the power that we have in the spending bill, any funds to be spent to bring back this unfairness doctrine to American broadcasting law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Beginning in 1949, the Federal Communications Commission enforced the so-called fairness doctrine that required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. It sounds reasonable enough, but there is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. Thankfully, the FCC overturned its own ruling in 1985. Since the demise of the fairness doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the Nation. Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk recent days about bringing back the fairness doctrine. Liberal think tanks and elected officials in both political parties in Congress are contemplating it. Bringing back the fairness doctrine would amount to nothing more than government control over political views expressed on public airwaves, and it must not be allowed to occur. This week I will be introducing the Broadcaster Freedom Act that will prevent the FCC or any future president from reinstating the fairness doctrine. President Kennedy said, ``A nation judge that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a Nation that's afraid of its people.'' I urge my colleagues to join me as original cosponsors of the Broadcaster Freedom Act and support every effort on the floor this week to leave this unfair fairness doctrine on the ash heap of broadcast history.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for her support of this amendment. Let me also say to the gentlewoman that I intend to support the underlying legislation and appreciate her strong work in support of Israel. The reason for bringing this bill, to answer the gentlelady's question, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. In recent days, the State Department has indicated its intent to ``lift restrictions on aid to Palestinians.'' And the Pence amendment today will simply say that any aid that would go to the Palestinian Authority must, with an exclamation point, only go to the Palestinian Authority under current restrictions in current law. That is my sincere intent.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for bringing this creative amendment to the floor. While I address the Chair, let me also acknowledge there may be others looking in. I want to be very clear on the point that what we are asking here is for this foreign operations budget to get by on only a 9 percent increase instead of a 9.5 percent increase. Back in Indiana, we just call this a haircut. But it is a haircut, as the gentlelady from Colorado said, that is a reduction of the increase. As I listened to the distinguished majority leader, who I enjoy and admire more than anyone else in this Chamber, he said if the shoe fits, wear it. I understand the frustration of looking across the aisle and seeing many of my colleagues in my party who voted for an awful lot of government programs over the last 6 years complaining about government spending, but then there is another saying that says if it does not fit, you must acquit. I would offer that for many of us asking for this very small haircut tonight, it does not fit us. We fought these budget increases. We fought the creation of new entitlements. Now we are coming before this majority in a spirit of collegiality and asking might we not do with $171 million less. Might we not do with just, instead of a 9.5 percent increase, how about a 9 percent increase.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today includes in various ways tens of millions of dollars that would be directed to advancing U.S. interests in areas known as the West Bank and Gaza. Given the recent violent and tragic events in the Palestinian territories and the strong commitment of this body to prevent taxpayer funding from reaching the hands of terrorists, I offer an amendment that reinforces previous prohibitions on funding Palestinian terrorist organizations and offer it for my colleagues' consideration on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, except as otherwise provided by existing law.'' So what is existing law? The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act last year, in 2006. It was signed into law in December. It states that, ``No ministry, agency or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority effectively controlled by Hamas'' would be eligible for funding unless it meets the basic preconditions of civil society, namely, recognition of Israel and the renunciation of violence. The purpose of this amendment today is to clarify that assistance may be provided to the Fattah elements of the PA government, assuming such elements are not engaged in the terrorism or compromise by the terrorism of Hamas. Concern about the application of this provision may have led the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mrs. Lowey, to put a hold and request information from Secretary Rice about her intent to release funding to the PA. Now, these safeguards and other relevant laws are critical because they prohibit assistance to terrorists, including to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority, but they permit assistance to a PA government that is in compliance with the principles of recognition of Israel, previous peace agreements, and a renunciation of violence. Why is it necessary? Well, because, given the systematic instability, we simply don't know what shape the Palestinian government will take in the coming months. Large portions of the Palestinian territories are in virtual anarchy at this moment. Even worse, Gaza is completely dominated by Hamas, a universally recognized terrorist organization. We cannot permit one red cent of U.S. dollars to find its way to Hamas. After lengthy discussions with the Department of State, including Secretary of State Rice herself, I would like my colleagues to know that this amendment is not opposed by the State Department. In fact, I had a warm and candid conversation today with the Secretary of State, and I told her then that it is critical that we clarify that the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 is still the law of the land and reiterate its intent, namely, to deny funding to terrorist entities within the Palestinian leadership. Mr. Chairman, we cannot permit any ambiguity to exist on this subject. This body should be on the record today, as we have before, that no American tax dollars can be delivered to any authority within the Palestinian territories that is compromised or even tainted by Hamas or other terrorist interests. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.