Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman answer whether he is going to vote for final passage of the emergency supplemental?

Mr. STEARNS. So the gentleman is going to vote no?

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I do not consider this a gnat, one-tenth of----

Mr. STEARNS. Let us call it a cat or a dog or something. But the point is, it is a start. And so the gentleman from Wisconsin is going to vote against the emergency supplemental. If he is trying to fight for fiscal responsibility, as he has been saying today, then certainly if we are cutting nondefense and nonemergency items and it is something that has not even gone through his Committee on Appropriations that he is the ranking member on, I would think the gentleman would be more than happy to say, ``Stearns is a great amendment, I am with you, shoulder to shoulder we will fight for fiscal responsibility.''

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the budget was a dollar and 10 cents was on the floor, I would try to save 10 cents, which is one-tenth of what we are talking about. So I urge my colleagues to think about it in that term. All the change that we have at home in our bedroom, we save it. We do not throw it in the trash because it might represent one- tenth of a dollar. I am sure the gentleman has pennies at home in a little tray like we all do and these pennies pile up and we go to the bank and take these pennies in. I am sure the gentleman has quarters and dimes. Mr. Chairman, we are only talking about 10 percent of the nonemergency and nondefense. So if my colleagues are keeping in their pocket right now pennies and dimes and quarters, then I would think they would be somebody that would want to support this amendment.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me just comment briefly, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts will understand that last year, September 30, 1999, we passed and sent to the President our Energy Conservation Policy Act. It was on the day that it expired. So we, with great alacrity and interest, submitted it to the President; and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts realized what the President did, he did not sign it. In fact, he waited 5 days. So the fact that this expires is not a major crisis, and I think he realizes that from the President himself not signing it when we gave it to him last year. To answer the gentleman from Michigan as to the point about the Department of Energy, the Department of Energy had nothing to do with the cost per gallon of energy either going from 72 under the Carter administration, the Democrat administration, down to 25 and lower; and now it is going up, notwithstanding the fact we give billions and billions and billions of dollars every day. Even the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Richardson, said we were caught napping. So after sending billions and billions of dollars year in and year out to this Department of Energy, there are people in Congress, including myself, who felt that perhaps this agency should be reformed. It is an institution that should be changed. It is an institution that is not meeting the demands. I think Secretary Richardson would probably agree today, since he admits that ``we were caught napping'' after all of this money we spent. I think most people in the House agree that the Department of Energy needs to be restructured. So that is my comment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies, or OPEC, in its capacity as an oil cartel or monopoly, has been a critical factor in driving prices of oil from approximately $11 a barrel in 1998 to a high of $30 a barrel last month. These are levels that we have not seen since the Persian Gulf War. Foreign countries that export oil to the United States have been engaged in a price-fixing scheme which has driven the average price at the pump to almost $2 in some parts of this country. Yet, the Clinton- Gore administration has done nothing to stop this, even with the OPEC strategy of price control. Even Energy Secretary Bill Richardson admits his administration, his department, was ``caught napping.'' Once again, the leadership in the White House has been lax, and foreign nations have taken advantage of our apparent weakness. We passed a plan yesterday with Republican leadership. So I urge the administration to adopt our plan and fight this oil cartel. la bella memorandum Mr. Speaker, last week, someone at the Justice Department leaked the La Bella memo to the press. The La Bella memo is a 94-page document calling on the Attorney General to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate the White House. The memo also spells out all of the ways that Janet Reno and her political advisors avoided any thorough investigation of the 1996 campaign fundraising scandal. A year after he was brought in to head the campaign fundraising investigation, La Bella concluded that Janet Reno and her political advisors had used ``gamesmanship'' and ``legal contortions'' to avoid a thorough investigation. He also concluded that the result was a double standard for the President, the Vice President, the First Lady and Harold Ickes, protecting them from any real investigation. There is something seriously wrong at the Justice Department when career prosecutors are not allowed to follow the facts wherever they lead. The result is an investigation that has no credibility. There are numerous examples of the failed investigation: The President and Vice President were never thoroughly questioned. Can you imagine--the Justice Department failed to ask the President a single question about James Riady and foreign money. They didn't ask the Vice President any questions about the Buddhist Temple fundraiser. Unbelievable! The Justice Department has apparently never asked the White House to turn over hundreds of thousands of e-mails that have never been reviewed. Central figures in the scandal, like John Huang and Charlie Trie, have received light sentences without giving up useful information to the Justice Department. Mr. Speaker, we have a right to know whether the Justice Department has done a thorough and credible job investigating the 1996 campaign fundraising scandal. The Justice Department has already leaked the La Bella memo to the press. They should now turn it over to congress, so that we can see if Janet Reno has allowed her career prosecutors to do their job.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, tonight we will talk about this and we will vote a little after midnight. A lot of my colleagues have their minds made up. So what can I say tonight to perhaps change their minds and have a realistic picture of this budget? The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), Mr. Davis, and others on this side talk about these huge tax cuts. Let us get real. This is $270 billion over 5 years. What is that, 20-some-billion a year? And we are spending $2 trillion a year. The spending alone is going up at 9 percent. Last year, between 1999 and the year 2000 budget we spent 9 percent with emergency supplementals. The people in this House should be embarrassed that spending is increasing at 9 and 10 percent a year, with emergency supplementals, and we are talking about a tax cut, a tax cut of $24 billion a year. Let us look at what Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said, appointed FBI Clinton administration, ``My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus to flow through into a reduction of debt to the public. If that proves politically infeasible, I would opt for cutting taxes. And under no condition do I see any room in the longer term outlook for major changes in expenditures.'' ``I would opt for cutting taxes.'' This is an objective individual who is trying to say reduce spending. Now this budget by the CATs is the only budget that we are going to vote on tonight that has 302(B) allocations restraint. It actually puts restraints. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was kind enough to acknowledge that. I hope everybody in the House realizes that the CATs budget is going to restrain spending. If spending is not restrained around here, it is going to continue at 9 percent; 9 and 10 percent means that in 7 years this budget is going to double. Instead of $2 trillion we are talking about $4 trillion. The other last point I want to make is our Nation's seniors would benefit because it repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security. So those who are going to vote against the CATs budget are going to vote with the Clinton administration on the tax increase on Social Security.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we have recently celebrated the first day of spring, and very soon Americans will take to the roads for their summer vacations. At least that is what they would like to do. Unfortunately, rising gas prices may keep many Americans from taking summer vacations this year. Gasoline prices are rising out of control, with the possibility of reaching close to $2.00 per gallon this summer. These fuel prices have also forced airlines to raise ticket prices. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is more dependent on foreign oil than we were during the gas crisis of the 1970s, and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson admits that the Clinton-Gore administration was ``caught napping.'' Well, while the administration has been sleeping, gas prices have been skyrocketing. I hope the Clinton-Gore administration wakes up soon, because Americans cannot afford much more of these outrageous gas prices.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it reflects well on the human condition that tragedy often brings out the best in people: compassion, resolve, understanding. Sometimes, unfortunately, a tragedy can also release the darker human impulses: cynicism, dishonesty, and opportunism. It is a regret that many times individuals will take advantage of a tragedy to promote an ill-conceived agenda. Last month, the Nation was stunned by the shocking death of 6-year- old Kayla Rolland in Mount Morris Township, Michigan. This young girl was killed in a classroom by a fellow student, a 6-year-old boy. This loss echoed beyond the family involved, her school, and their community. It touched all of us, evoking a sense of nationwide grief and dread. Madam Speaker, sadly, it was not long before the heartbreaking death of this girl was transformed into a means of a lot of political points. That very day, the President announced that this tragedy should be an election issue. He went on to demand passage of various gun-control measures. First, we should look at the facts of this matter and consider what difference this administration's proposals would have made. Chuck Green of the Denver Post did this for us when he asked these questions in a recent column: Did the little boy have a concealed-carry permit? Did the little boy purchase the weapon from an independent dealer after failing a background check by a licensed dealer at a gun show? Did the little boy use false identification when purchasing the weapon? Did the little boy use an illegal automatic weapon in the assault? Did the little boy have an older person, possibly a 9-year-old child, purchase this gun on his behalf? The answer to this killing is not to be found in too few gun laws, but rather in how this boy was raised. He was living with his uncle and another man, sleeping on the couch in the living room. It was a home reportedly with a constant flow of strangers seeking crack and trading guns. The .32 caliber pistol used to kill the girl was stolen. Now, I expect that some of my colleagues would claim that child safety locks would have prevented the shooting in the classroom. Now, selling crack is illegal, as is trading for guns. Do they really think that these individuals would have obeyed a law requiring safety locks? I would also remind my colleagues that Michigan already has a number of State laws targeting gun violence on the books. These are some of the laws: prohibit selling any firearm to a minor under 18; prohibit possession of a handgun by person under age 18; prohibit possession of any firearms, including BB guns on school property; prohibit possession of even a BB gun beyond the yard of a minor's home unless accompanied by a person over 18; prohibit intentionally pointing, even without malice, any firearm at another person; require that all handguns must be registered; require a license to purchase a handgun from a dealer or a private individual; void the handgun license if not used within 10 days of issuance; require theft of a gun to be reported to police within 5 days of discovery. Gun violence is a scourge on our Nation, and we have a responsibility to tackle this plague, not with empty gestures, but with solid action. Instead of passing new gun laws, we should enforce those already on the books. Here in Washington, for example, there are 2,400 violent crimes committed with firearms in 1998. Only two criminals were prosecuted in Federal court for these gun crimes. This is not uncommon. A study by Syracuse University found that Federal prosecution of gun crimes has dropped, has dropped by 44 percent since 1993. However, only a 2-hour drive from here, where I am speaking, vigorous Federal action has helped to reduce gun homicides in Richmond, Virginia, by one half. Project Exile is an effective, anti-violence program promising Federal prosecution and an additional 5 years in jail for felons caught with a gun. In Richmond, more prosecutions under Federal gun laws took place than in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. combined. The President and his supporters want to create a false sense of security by enacting more laws with little or no real impact on the problem. A stronger commitment to enforcing the laws already on the books will do far more to protect our communities and our school rooms from gun violence.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the White House e-mail controversy continues. Five Northrop Grumman employees were so intimidated by the White House threats of jail that one was nearly fired when she refused to tell her own bosses about the administration's failure to turn over thousands of e-mail messages under subpoena. Newly obtained information shows the White House threatened to have the five employees jailed after they found and reported a glitch in the White House computer system that prevented the discovery of more than 100,000 White House messages involving campaign finance abuses, Monica Lewinsky, Chinagate, and Filegate. Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department does not even appear to be interested, does not want to check these e-mails for information about the campaign finance scandal. Why has Janet Reno, the attorney general, been so silent on this matter?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Well, Madam Speaker, if you are quoting from a newspaper, like the New York Times, can you do that?

Mr. STEARNS. So, Madam Speaker, it is time for the Attorney General to disclose Mr. LaBella's report. That is all I am asking here today. The American people have a right to know what is in that report. In fact, they should have an opportunity to know what the FBI director said when he also recommended that an independent counsel be appointed. I think at this point, I think that the newspapers speak for themselves and so now, Madam Speaker, I think the Attorney General should come forward and tell us when she is going to make that report available.

Mr. STEARNS. Out of deference to you, Madam Speaker, yes.

Mr. STEARNS. But I have used the word ``quotation.'' I have actually put the word ``quotation'' in there to signal that these are not my words but these are words from the newspaper. I mean, it appears to me, Madam Speaker, that if you cannot quote the newspapers on the House floor and use ``quotation,'' that seems to be a denial of the right for a Member to use newspapers in an edifying way.

Mr. STEARNS. You cannot quote from the New York Times newspaper?

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, this is being reported from the L.A. Times, the New York Times, and all the newspapers in Central Florida. So all I am doing is reporting what is in the newspaper.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I might point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that all the money that is in the estate has already been taxed and what Republicans are trying to say is why should the Government tax twice this money that is there. Madam Speaker, I am here because of recent newspaper articles that have been published, especially in the New York Times. Last Thursday, a Federal jury convicted Maria Hsai, a friend and a political supporter of Vice President Al Gore, on five felony counts for arranging more than $100,000 in illegal donations during the 1996 presidential campaign. Prosecutors allege that Hsai tapped a Buddhist temple and some of her business clients for money to reimburse Hsai donors who were listed as contributors in campaign records. Hsai was charged with causing false statements to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. According to evidence presented in the case, $109,000 in reimbursed donations went to the Clinton-Gore 1996 campaign and to the Democratic Party. Hsai's fund raising also included $65,000 in Hsai donations which she funneled through monks and nuns the day after Vice President Gore's 1996 visit to the Buddhist Temple in California. Now, of course, Madam Speaker, the Vice President initially had no recollection that he was attending a fund raiser but believed, rather, that he was attending a community outreach program. That is, of course, until the video footage surfaced showing him at the temple and after documents turned up that referred to the event in advance as a fund raiser. Only then, Madam Speaker, did the Vice President modify his characterization, saying he thought it was a finance-related situation. Ironically enough, in response to Hsai's conviction, the Attorney General, Janet Reno, said, ``The verdict sends a clear message that the Department of Justice will not tolerate violations of our Federal campaign finance laws.'' Evidently her comments need to be revised to mean the Department of Justice will tolerate campaign finance laws in some cases and not in others, for the Attorney General's action indicate there are certain violations of our Federal campaign finance laws she is willing to tolerate or unwilling to get to the bottom of. The Los Angeles Times reported last Friday on Charles LaBella's report to Attorney General Janet Reno warning that numerous conflicts of interest made the Justice Department's insistence that its own lawyers handling the inquiry into the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign a ``recipe for disaster.'' Madam Speaker, my colleagues will recall that Mr. LaBella was hand picked by the Attorney General to head the Campaign Financing Task Force and to take over the Department of Justice's public integrity section's investigation into political fund-raising abuses. Mr. LaBella's report, which the Attorney General has still kept sealed for nearly 2 years, found ``a pattern of conduct'' on the part of White House officials, including the President, that warranted an independent counsel probe. Additionally, Mr. LaBella found that senior Justice officials engaged in ``gamesmanship'' and legal ``contortions'' to avoid an independent inquiry into the Clinton-Gore fund-raising abuses. According to the L.A. Times, Madam Speaker, Mr. LaBella found ``The campaign finance allegations present the earmarks of a loose enterprise employing different actors at different levels who share a common goal, bring in the money.'' Among those singled out for special treatment according to the LaBella report were the President, Vice President Al Gore, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and former White House aide Harold Ickes. The Times said the report was the first indication, the first indication, that Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the fund-raising scandal arising from the 1996 presidential election was under scrutiny. Since the fund raising first made headlines in 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno has refused to allow outside prosecutors to narrowly focus their investigations of alleged White House wrongdoings. Examples include her refusal to appoint investigations into fund-raising telephone calls by the Vice President from the White House and the issue ads funded by the Democratic National Committee. To further confound matters, she has long gone against her own FBI director.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think that the compromise before us accurately reflects the consensus of the Congress that we must encourage the privatization of INTELSAT without diminishing competition. I strongly support the satellite reform conference agreement and I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for its passage today. As many of you know, for the last few years, there has been great disagreement between the House and Senate on how to craft a meaningful satellite communications reform bill. Under the leadership of Chairman Bliley, Representative Tauzin and Representative Oxley, and Senator Burns, we have reached the point in the debate where there is finally an agreement that can be enacted into law. I believe that the conference agreement achieves the core objectives of everyone who cares about satellite reform without imposing substantial threats to genuine market competition or breaching the Constitution. When the House passed its satellite reform bill at the end of the first session of the 106th Congress, I expressed some concerns of mine about a provision in the House bill that seemed to place unnecessary conditions on lifting COMSAT's ownership caps. In my opinion, retaining this language would have continued to block the consummation of the Lockheed Martin-COMSAT merger. I am pleased that this issue I raised was addressed by the conferees. The conference agreement now before us does not impose any conditions on the removal of COMSAT's board and ownership restrictions. Those restrictions are eliminated upon enactment without conditions. This change will enable Lockheed Martin to acquire 100% of COMSAT without further delay. I thank Chairman Bliley and the other conferees for amending this provision so that Lockheed Martin can more quickly enter the satellite communications market. I am also pleased that the conference agreement does not contain fresh look and so-called Level IV direct access, which would have been confiscatory and punitive. Extracting those provisions, along with the significant improvements that were made to the House-passed privatization criteria, have put us in the position of being able to pass a compromise satellite reform bill that can be signed into law. I congratulate my colleagues in the House and in the Senate on a job well done, and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Orange Park High School for being named as a GRAMMY Signature School by the GRAMMY Foundation. Orange Park High School happens to be in my Congressional District and it has a fine reputation as a public school of education. However, I believe the Orange Park High School's receipt of this most recent honor should be given the recognition it deserves for this great achievement. It was won through a rigorous competition that was held throughout the nation. This honor was achieved by the school for its outstanding music education program and makes Orange Park High School one of 100 schools to be chosen to receive a certificate of recognition based on its great level of commitment to music education. The GRAMMY Foundation began the selection process last September when it mailed out over 18,000 applications to high school across the country requesting information about the schools' music programs. These applications were then submitted to an independent data compilation firm for processing. Some schools were asked to submit additional documentation such as recordings of school concerts, sample concert programs, music curriculum and repertoire that was reviewed by an independent screening committee. The GRAMMY Signature School advisory committee is comprised of members of the American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, the Berklee College of Music, BMI, Crossroads School, Music Educators National Conference, Thelonius Monk Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, National Association of Music Merchandisers, National Music Council, Music Performance Trust Funds, University of Southern California-Thornton School of Music, and the Cherokee Nation. The GRAMMY Foundation is a non-profit arm of the Recording Academy and it is dedicated to advancing music and arts-based education throughout the entire country thereby ensuring access to America's rich cultural legacy. The Foundation aims to strengthen our educational system through cultural, professional and educational initiatives. I also want to pay special tribute to Bert Creswell, Director of Bands, W. Steve Ogilvie, Association Director of Bands, Jeff Mills, Associate Director of Bands, Janet Metcalf, William S. Ward, Judy Creswell, and the Orange Park High School Raider Band Parents Association for all their assistance because without their invaluable contributions this recognition would not be possible. Michael Greene, President/CEO of the Recording Academy said at the time: ``We are thrilled to give national recognition to these schools for an outstanding job of fostering their arts programs in a difficult cultural environment.'' He went on to say: ``We applaud them for their success in ensuring that music education does not become a cultural casualty in their district, and for implementing music education programs that make a positive difference in the lives of young adults.'' I am very proud that the dedication and effort shown by the faculty and students of Orange Park High School has been rewarded by being named as a GRAMMY Signature School.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about the veterans budget for the year 2001. Now, the administration has presented a budget, and it is a good start. The budget which was presented is much better than last year, which fell short in several areas, and that is why as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health I have recommended an increase of $25 million above the President's request for medical research. The committee has also recommended increasing the administration's proposed $60 million for State veterans home construction grant programs to $140 million. As the sponsor of the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, which requires VA to fund pending projects and to revise the priorities for the award of new grants, the proposed reduction in funding would result in projects being delayed another year or more. This is a top priority for me. I will fight to get these proposed increases passed. Overall, the committee recommends a $100 million increase over the President's budget request. Veterans deserve our deepest respect and we must keep the promises we made to them.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, back in the 1930s the reason for starting the earnings test the Democrats said it was necessary to allow younger workers to work. Today what we have is a shortage of qualified and experienced workers, so it is very appropriate that we are getting around to enacting this legislation. I might point out I am glad to see the minority party supports this piece of legislation. For almost 4 decades the Democratic party did not seem to want to initiate and to pass this legislation; and the chairman here, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and others on this side, worked so hard to try and pass this. So this is a great day, to see the folks on the other side of the aisle say let's pass it by unanimous agreement. There is no good reason, of course. There is no longer a reason for this antiquated law to be on the books. It is discriminatory. So I support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. I am an original cosponsor of it. It is a law we have to be very joyful this afternoon for, because it is a law that is needed. Mr. Speaker, since the Social Security program was created in 1935, it has always included an earnings test. There have been many efforts through the years to eliminate the earnings test, but none were successful. Back in the 1930's the reason given for starting the earnings test was to ``open up jobs'' for younger workers. What we are currently experiencing is a shortage of qualified and experienced workers. The time to act is now. In 1996 I voted to increase the earnings limit for seniors who chose to continue working. We were able to increase the earnings limit for those aged 65-69 to $30,000 by the year 2002. At the time this legislation was passed, a working senior who reached $11,280 in earned income lost $1 in Social Security for each $3 earned thereafter. That's a marginal tax rate of 33%! That's a high price to pay for merely wanting to work. Let's take a look at how the current law affects our nation's seniors who are receiving Social Security benefits and also working. This year beneficiaries aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 without being penalized. They lose one dollar for every three of earnings that exceed this limit. Beneficiaries aged 62-64, those individuals who retire early, are allowed to earn up to $10,080 this year without a penalty. They lose one dollar of Social Security benefits for every two dollars they earn above the imposed limit. While the measure we passed in 1996 made vast improvements to the earnings test, our real goal at that time was to repeal the law outright. I believe that we will be successful this time around. What's wrong with giving elderly workers who either want to work or must work in order to maintain a decent lifestyle the ability to do so. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 5 that would repeal the Social Security earnings test entirely. I have long been a proponent of repealing this outdated provision and shall continue to support such proposals until we succeed in changing this law. The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats Social Security benefits less like a pension and more like welfare. It represents a Social Security bias in favor of unearned income over earned income. It is effectively a mandatory retirement mechanism our country no longer accepts or needs. It precludes greater flexibility for the elderly worker and also prevents America's full use of eager, experienced and educated elderly workers. Finally, it deprives the U.S. Economy of the additional income tax which would be generated by the elderly workers. There is no good reason to keep this antiquated and discriminatory law in existence any longer. I support swift passage of the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act and call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this very important and long overdue change in the law.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio. Like the gentleman from Texas, I compliment the Chairman for his bill. I say to my colleagues, if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) had not brought this bill and had not acted quickly, from the conservative ministry of James Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Ministry in Fort Lauderdale to the actual Christmas services of the Pope at the Vatican, we would not be able to have these televised. These are two dramatic examples of services that are carried that people listen to. So I think what we did in a larger sense is bring to bear the inadequacies of the FCC. He and I and others, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), are on a special task force to try and reform the FCC. So I am here to compliment the gentleman on what he did; but in a larger sense, this points to the need for reform. So in my comments this evening, I will be talking about that. The FCC's actions, defining and regulating noncommercial educational television stations, is something that we should be concerned about, because they met on December 28, I believe it was, December 28, right after Christmas, before New Year's, and issued an order. Now, normally when they issue an order, they have a hearing. They ask for comments. But for some reason, they decided to just go ahead and bring this up and issue an order, vacating ``the additional guidance.'' The underlying problem with the FCC in the first place is they should not have even done this without a hearing and having an opportunity for people to participate. So the gentleman's bill, H.R. 3525, the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act, needs our support today. We should pass it on the House floor. Of course, my main point in addition to that is to reform and reauthorize this program to make their activities more clear to them. Three of the five FCC commissioners decided on this infamous date of December 28 last year that in order for noncommercial educational television to retain their licenses, they must devote 50 percent of their programming hours to shows that are educational and cultural and whose purpose is to meet the educational, instructional, and cultural needs of the community. In doing so, three of the five FCC commissioners placed the FCC in the position of reviewing and evaluating all religious programming by concluding, ``programming primarily devoted to religious education, proselytizing or statements of personally-held religious views and beliefs generally would not qualify, would not qualify as educational or cultural programming.'' So basically they are saying that religion is not educational, it is not cultural; and as I said earlier, even the Christmas services at the Vatican by the Pope would not qualify under the FCC's ruling. Church services in themselves would not qualify. As most of us know, many of us on Sunday after church will even watch the television for additional services, and it is an inspiration for all of us. Fortunately, two of the commissioners at the FCC had the foresight and common sense to realize the ramifications of their decisions. As the two commissioners said, regulations like this ``may open a Pandora's box of problems that will create confusion and litigation.'' Simply put, the more the Commission attempts to generically define which educational, instructional, and cultural programming will count for regulatory purposes, the closer it will come to unacceptable content regulation. The order indicates that church services generally would not qualify as a general educational program. We ask, however, why such programming might not qualify as cultural programming, just as a presentation of an opera or any other types of things like that. So last month, they finally, I guess it was this month, they finally changed their decision, exercised some common sense, reversed all of their guidelines, and I think that is, I know it is because of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the bill which I cosponsored, an original cosponsor with others, and the fact that when he put it on the House floor, he got over 75 cosponsors. So I urge the leadership to send a message to the FCC that we just cannot have this kind of behavior from the FCC, and we need to recognize that this bill is important to pass and send a message to the FCC that they should not do this again. So this congressional scrutiny we had and this legislation has stopped the FCC dead in its tracks. They reversed themselves; and I think, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has pointed out, the e- mails and all of the hundreds of letters that I have received, that he and other Members of Congress confirm the need for his bill. So I urge my colleagues this evening to pass the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act that he introduced. It will not only reverse the FCC regulations pertaining to noncommercial religious broadcasters, but also require public comments, just a simple thing, require public comments before handing down any future changes to noncommercial licensing regulations. This is extremely important, for there are still those at the FCC, judging from the comments of some of the commissioners after they reversed this, in which they said it was a sad and shameful day to reverse this decision. They said that the FCC capitulated to organized campaigns of distortion, and all we did is got on the House floor a couple of times, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) got all these cosponsors, and they accused us of distortion simply because we wanted to allow the idea of religious broadcasting to be cultural and educational; and we wish, after 30 years it has been on television, we wish that to continue. There are still many people, Mr. Speaker, at the FCC that want to go back and continue with the decision they did in the dead of the night December 28. Fortunately, they will not be able to do that. That is why I think it is extremely important that we continue our fight here on the House floor to continue to try and get this bill passed, because if we do not, from what I see from the FCC comments of those who dissented after they reversed their decision, they are still going to be working hard to change the size and scope of the programming in television. That is why I encourage in a larger sense this reform of the FCC, because they do not get the message. Without reform, and reauthorization with this reform, we will not be able to control this agency, control it in the sense that it better represents the citizens of the country. Mr. Speaker, I am here to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for what he did for the betterment of this country, for television, and I think for the long-term survival of the country, that we can have and understand on television that religion is educational and it is part of our cultural heritage.