Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman is again correct.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it, CARA is not in this bill. CARA is not in this bill. Everybody should know that. I want to speak especially to the 102 Members of this body who voted against CARA. If my colleagues will examine their conscience, they will have to admit with me that most of them voted against CARA because they did not think there was enough property rights protection in a bill that was going to authorize an enormous amount of land acquisition in this country. Some of my colleagues are from western States where the government already owns 60, 70, 80 percent of the property in their State. They were concerned about the government acquiring some more land without real strong private property protections. Well, guess what we are going to vote on today when we vote on this Interior appropriations bill. We are going to vote on $540 million of new land acquisitions in this country with no private property protections. CARA had 21 separate provisions in it protecting private property. That is not in this bill. There is no provision saying one can only buy from a willing seller. In other words, under this bill, one can spend $540 million of acquiring property from people who do not want to sell their land. That is called expropriation. When we vote for this bill without CARA, that is what we will be getting. Keep in mind that CARA guaranteed for the first time a distribution of funds to the coastal States of America. What kind of distribution was that all about? It was simply to try to give coastal States some contribution for the minerals produced offshore in some kind of way commensurate with the money that America automatically mandates is provided to interior States for minerals produced on Federal lands in interior States. The law currently mandates 50 percent of all Federal royalties on interior States' federally owned property goes to the States. Committee on Appropriations does not spend it. No yielding of appropriations. It is a mandate to the interior States. This bill would have provided 27 percent to be shared among all coastal States. That is gone. There is no guarantee for coastal money. There is just a lot of Federal land acquisition with no private property rights. That is not the deal that CARA would have offered us.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Let me explain quickly why. First, it is important to know that this body has legislated for the past 30 years on privacy concerns. There are at least a dozen or so privacy bills that already have been passed by this body, some recently dealing with children online, some recently dealing with financial services, issues, or medical records. We continue to examine those before the Committee on Commerce and other committees of this body. Recently, the Chamber of Commerce put on an extraordinary function at Lansdowne, Virginia where we brought in private sector individuals and learned a great deal more about the issue. The staff, as we speak, of the Committee on Commerce is working with my staff to see if we cannot have one additional hearing before we leave Congress this year as we prepare for what the Committee on Commerce expects to do in this area next year. But the last thing we need to do, in my opinion, is to give this issue to some commission to make decisions about these critical issues. Let me tell my colleagues about a report that GAO just did at the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and I. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and I asked GAO to look at Federal Web sites to see how well they protected privacy and to use the FTC standard to find out which among our Federal sites were out of line. Do my colleagues know how many sites on the Federal Web complied with the FTC guidelines? Three percent. Fourteen percent of them had cookies. Everyone of them was gathering personal information. Only 23 percent met the test for security, which means those Web sites are open to hackers every day. The bottom line is the Federal Government itself does not have its act in order. Our own Federal Web sites, 3 percent only comply with the FTC. Yet, we are going to appoint a commission to tell us how the private sector should be adopting rules on privacy. No, I think that is our responsibility. I think our responsibility is, number one, number one, to get the Federal Web sites in line so that, on the Federal site where one has to give up information to the government, that information is protected properly; and then, two, for the Committee on Commerce and the legislature to come up with some good legislation for the private sector.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3113, a bill which, for the first time, puts in place meaningful consumer protections against the receipt of spam or unsolicited commercial e- mail. It is important, first of all, to recognize this is a truly bipartisan effort, 100 percent of the way, 100 percent of the time. Back in November of last year, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who I want to congratulate today, and as flowery a term as I can possibly imagine, she has done Herculean work to bring this to the floor. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), like the gentlewoman from New Mexico, has worked so hard in putting together the final compromises. The gentleman from California (Gary Miller) who came to us earlier and asked for our consideration of his measure which has now played a significant role in the final version of this bill, along, of course, with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member, of our committee, who have done such a good job to bring this to the floor today. We reported the bill out of subcommittee by unanimous vote, and the same thing happened in full committee, all in voice votes, indicating strong support for this bill. It addresses the substantive concerns of the Committee on the Judiciary as well, by the way. It makes the appropriate adjustments to title XVIII, which was proposed by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), which criminalizes certain egregious spamming activities that will not necessarily be deterred by civil penalties. In effect, this consensus legislation will protect consumers without infringing upon constitutionally protected commercial speech. It does so by providing consumers layers of protection that, on an aggregate basis, empower the consumers to rid themselves of spam without imposing an outright ban on unsolicited electronic mail. First, consumers will have a choice in the marketplace between the ISPs who accept spam and those who do not. Second, if a consumer subscribes to an ISP that does accept spam for dissemination, that consumer will have the right to be placed on an op-out list administered by the ISP so spam will not be received. And, third, where a consumer not wishing still happens to receive spam, the bill requires that all spam messages contain a valid electronic mail address to which the recipient can send a reply saying no further messages. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation; I urge its adoption on the House floor.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it this afternoon. Back in June the subcommittee I am honored to chair, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, was afforded the opportunity to hold a hearing on this bill. At the hearing, we learned many things regarding current State and Federal law as it applied to both interstate and intrastate gambling activities. While the existing framework governing such activity is not always a model of clarity, our hearing revealed that this bill as it came to us to the committee explicitly legalized certain interstate parimutuel gaming activities that the Justice Department believes are prima facie illegal under current Federal law, namely the Wire Act. As a result, the administration did, in fact, oppose H.R. 3125 when we held our hearings and they opposed it on the grounds that first it did then expand gambling beyond and above what is allowed by existing law according to Justice's interpretation of the Wire Act and, secondly, that it was not technologically neutral and that it made legal on the Internet activities that might be illegal when conducted on phone wire. In response to these criticisms, my good friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and their staffs, recrafted the parimutuel gaming provisions of the bill as we see them today. Working with the sports leagues, many religious interests and the parimutuel gaming interests themselves, we are happy to report that we were successful in coming up with the compromise language that makes it clear that the bill no longer draws any legal distinction between the Internet and wire line gaming activities and, as a result, in no way expands gambling beyond the present limits whatever those limits are according to the Justice Department or the courts of the land. This language now added to H.R. 3125 in the form of a managers amendment clarifies the bill prohibits all online gambling and only permits otherwise lawful, State regulated, live parimutuel wagering activities that are conducted on a closed subscriber-based loop. By the way, I should also point out it does allow the Internet intrastate for the use of the lottery activities provided that they are conducted in a public place. With this language, H.R. 3125 now addresses the administration's concerns and places an appropriate ban on gambling activities that is badly needed for the country and needs to be adopted. In the past couple years, online gambling has flourished into a $1 billion industry with more than 700 sites in existence. The sports- related casino style gambling taking place over the Internet today has, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) pointed out, ruined the lives of many Americans young and old. If we fail to present the President with this legislation this year, the proliferation will be enormous. Make no mistake. This bill needs to be passed. It is neutral. It does not expand gambling. It needs to be addressed.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I start with one question: Have we walked through the looking glass with Alice? Have we now entered Wonderland? I want my colleagues to follow this with me. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specify in section 181 that EPA is to put in place a 1-hour standard for ozone and particulate protection, and to measure communities out of attainment based upon that standard. EPA decided on its own to revise that standard. The court of appeals here in Washington said that was unconstitutional. It further held that their standards were arbitrary and capricious and they use no intelligible standards by which to address the science to this new formula they came up with. So they have got an unconstitutional formula standard on their hands. They are told they cannot enforce it. And yet today they are demanding that States declare communities across America out of the attainment on a standard that has been declared unconstitutional. Have we entered Wonderland? Now we are told this is not going to cost anything. EPA says this is going to cost $9.6 billion to implement. Have we got $9.6 billion to throw away, designating nonattainment communities on a standard that the Supreme Court might indeed declare unconstitutional? I ask my colleagues, who of them in their district has $9.6 billion to give to this worthless effort? Secondly, the Supreme Court is going to rule on this next year. We are going to get an answer as to whether this is real or not. In the meantime, EPA wants to designate communities across America in 324 congressional districts, 324, three-quarters of the congressional districts of this House, are going to be designated out of attainment. For what? For a standard that has been declared unconstitutional. Every one of those communities and congressional districts will be stigmatized for economic growth and development and will be told they are out of attainment, they are not in compliance with Federal law. And my colleagues tell me damage will not be done. This is Wonderland. We need to adopt this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to clarify for my friend from New York that this is not the low-power FM bill dealing with the Commission's decision to authorize the expansion of radio broadcasting to FM low power. This bill merely deals with the noncommercial television and radio licenses that are already issued by the commission. There are about 800 to 1,000 radio licenses; and there are 15 television licenses, eight more in the pipe, that are held by religious broadcasters. And the issue today that this rule authorizes the legislation on will be to limit the FCC's capacity to regulate the content of the religious broadcasting that goes on these noncommercial television and radio stations that are already on the air. So the gentleman's concern about the FM low-power issue is obviously a very important one, and we dealt with that issue I think several weeks ago. This is a separate issue dealing with religious radio and television broadcasting.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. I rise in support of H.R. 4201, the Noncommercial Broadcast Freedom of Expression Act of 2000. While this is indeed a good bill, I am frankly disappointed that it is necessary. It is necessary to correct a gross blunder by the FCC and to prevent it from ever happening again. Earlier this year, in the WQED Pittsburgh station case, a television transfer case, the FCC sought to quantify the service obligations of noncommercial television licenses by requiring that ``more than half of the hours of programming aired on a reserved channel must serve an educational, instructional, or cultural purpose in the station's community of license.'' But they went on to say that while programming which teaches about religion would count toward that new benchmark, programming that was ``devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs'' would not. In short, the Commission was drawing substantive distinctions between what religious message would qualify in the content of that station's broadcasting. Now, the FCC has licensed quite a number of religious broadcasters on the noncommercial airwaves of America. About 800 to 1,000 radio licenses are currently held and operated by religious broadcasters. There are 15 television stations operated by religious broadcasters as a noncommercial license. The FCC has never before now tried to regulate the content of those religious messages in religious broadcasting. But in this situation, the FCC tried to do so. I do not have to tell my colleagues that they were met with a huge outpouring of objections, not only from Members of Congress, but from people across America. Indeed, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and I, along with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and about 140 additional Members of the House, including, by the way, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) all joined forces against the commission's action. Fortunately, in response to the collective public outcry against these actions, the FCC wisely decided to vacate the additional guidance, these new instructions that they were issuing in this order, and they vacated that order by a vote of four to six. In other words, they back-peddled quickly. They quickly tried to undo the mistake they made. In fact, the concern that they might make that mistake again is, unfortunately still with us, because despite this four to one reversal, when we held a hearing at the Subcommittee on Telecommunications of the Committee on Commerce, one of the commissioners, Commissioner Tristani asserted, and this is a quote, that she, ``for one, will continue to cast the vote in accordance with the views expressed in the additional guidance.'' In other words, there is still a sense that the commission, at least by some of the members of the FCC, that they would like to dictate the content of religious broadcasting in America. Mr. Speaker, imagine that. Federal bureaucrats telling us what we can and cannot hear on a religious broadcast station, what qualifies as a good message and what does not. Government telling religious broadcasters what they can and cannot say in a religious television or radio broadcast. What a horrible notion. And yet, at least one of our commissioners says, given the chance, she would do it again. Therefore, this bill becomes necessary. This bill, which we have constructed and passed out of the Committee on Commerce and brought to the floor today, H.R. 4201 authored by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) on behalf of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), myself, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), takes the appropriate stance against what the FCC tried to do. It basically codifies the old rule of the commission. The old rule of the commission, which basically is encapsulated in the commission's reversal, by which they reversed their bad decision, is as follows. This is what the Commission said when it finally backed up and corrected the bad mistake it made: ``In hindsight, we see the difficulty of minting clear definitional parameters for educational, instructional, or cultural programming. Therefore, we vacate our additional guidance. We will defer to the editorial judgment of the licensee unless that judgment is arbitrary or unreasonable.'' That has always been the standard. The commission has always left it up to the licensee to decide what messages were broadcast on these religious noncommercial airwaves. That has always been the rule; this bill codifies that rule. In fact, the bill says that from now on, the commission shall not have the authority to change it, to try to dictate the content of religious broadcasting. Now, in just a few minutes we will hear from my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and others about their objections to the bill. They come in two forms. One, they will argue that the bill broadens the eligibility standard for noncommercial educational licenses. That is not true. We simply codify the current standards. Under current standards, the FCC, licensing over 800 to 1,000 radio stations and now, nearly 23 television stations, uses either a point system or a lottery system that has nothing to do with religious affiliation and simply awards these stations on that basis. Nothing we do changes that. But the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will offer an amendment later to try to reinsert into the bill the capacity of the FCC to determine whether the station is educational enough; that is, again, to give it the right to get in and dictate what messages qualify, which do not; which religious messages are educational and which, in the opinion of the FCC, are not. For example, they could not tell us whether Handel's Messiah performing in the Kennedy Center would be educational; but it would not be educational on a religious broadcast station. We can see the difficulty and why this amendment needs to be defeated. It was defeated in the committee; it should be defeated on the floor. Finally, I want to point out that the bill does exactly what the Constitution says it ought to do when it comes to religion. It simply provides a no-nonsense statement that instructional, educational, cultural, and religious programming are treated exactly the same, no difference. No preference for religion, no penalties for religious broadcasting. In short, it literally abides by the Constitution, protects free speech, protects religious broadcasting from government interference. This is a good bill and we need to pass it, and we need to defeat the Markey amendment when it is offered. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the author of the legislation, who has done an enormously excellent job in bringing this bill through the committee and to the floor.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me read the bill without the Markey amendment. It says that these licenses are reserved to people who prove ``that their organization serves an educational, instructional, cultural, or religious purpose.'' We have not taken ``educational'' out. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to do is take ``religious'' out. He wants to insert ``educational religious.'' The word ``educational'' is still in. ``Educational, cultural, instructional, or religious'' is what the bill now says. Proof it is just not so. What we are doing in the bill, what the Markey amendment would undo, is to prevent the Commission from qualifying which religious broadcasting is permitted. I just attended the D-Day Museum dedication in New Orleans where we celebrate the greatest generation, what they fought for in World War II. They were fighting to preserve our Constitution and our freedoms. Our Constitution says the government needs to stay out of the business of religion in our country. Yet, this FCC tried to get into it. This bill keeps them out. The Markey amendment lets government get back in. We need to defeat the Markey amendment and adopt the original bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), a prime sponsor and supporter of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first let my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, know that I do not particularly like characterizing motives. I do not like it when we do this on the floor. I do not like it when my side does it or the gentleman's side does it. However, if the gentleman wants to ask about motives, let me explain them. I do not think the gentleman can characterize the motives of people regarding public broadcasting. Many like public broadcasting but do not like the way it is being funded. Many of us think there is enough diversity in television that we do not necessarily have to use tax dollars to fund a separate category of public broadcasting. There are many who were offended when public broadcasting shared its donor list only with Democratic organizations. Members might look at that and see some real cause for anger and concern on this side. When a public institution funded with taxpayer dollars decides to help one political party to the exclusion of the other, I guess it is going to cause a little anger and upset on this side. It well should have. But I have not accused nor would I question the motives of the gentleman's side in offering this amendment. I have not said the gentleman was against religious programming. I am not suggesting that the administration is out to shut down religious programming, or the FCC tried to shut down religious voices on noncommercial stations. There were some people saying that. I never said that. What I have said, what I will continue to say, is that what the FCC did in December was stupid. It tried to inject government decisions into what was proper religious programming on a religious broadcast station. We ought to put a stop to that. It ought to be the decisions of the religious programmers themselves to decide what religious programming they are going to put on television and radio stations dedicated to religious programming. Mr. Speaker, the FCC did something very different in December. Up until December, it was always the presumption that religious programming was presumed to be educational. I happen to think it is. The FCC thought it was for years and years, never questioned it. Then in December it decided it was going to set up two categories of religious programming: educational religious programming and I guess noneducational religious programming. If there was not enough of one or too much of the other, they would shut them down. What an offensive, arbitrary decision by the FCC, which is supposed to be carrying out the law, not making up their own law, not deciding as a matter of law what was good religious speech on television and radio and what was unacceptable. That is wrong. That is what is wrong. That is what is unconstitutional. This bill will end it. It will not only say to the FCC, you cannot do it in the dead of night without public input and proceedings; it will say, you cannot ever do it again. The gentleman's amendment will give them the right to do it again. The gentleman's amendment says, exactly as the FCC wanted to say, that there are two categories of religious broadcasting, one educational religious, and then something else. They do not define it, do not know what it is, and guess who defines it under the gentleman's amendment? The same FCC that did the stupid thing they did in December. That is the reason the gentleman's amendment needs to be defeated; not because the gentleman had bad motives, not because our side has better or weaker motives than the gentleman, but because the amendment is wrong. It gives the FCC the power to do the stupid thing they tried to do in December. That amendment needs to be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the record. Again, there are over 1,000 religious broadcasters who do religious broadcasting all day long, today. They do not do educational programming and also religious programming; they do religious programming all day long. Never in the history of that broadcasting has any government bureaucrat ever had the audacity to come in and decide which of that religious broadcasting was educational enough for their purposes, whether the mass was educational enough, a sermon was. But I will tell my colleagues what this commission tried to do in December. They tried to say that if 50 percent of it did not meet their standards, then they are off the air. This bill will prevent that ever happening again. The Markey amendment gives them a back door to do exactly what they did in December, to come in and say, we decide that 50 percent of it needs to be religious broadcasting that we think is educational enough; and if it is not, they are off the air. That is why it needs to be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me point out that the problem is that the FCC got into doing that. It got into trying to say which religious content was educational enough to please the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) or anyone else in this country. That is what was wrong. It basically said a church service was not educational enough, a sermon perhaps by the Reverend Jessie Jackson on the Ten Commandments would not be educational enough for these commissioners, and they were going to decide when these religious broadcasters were or were not meeting the standards of the FCC, as to whether or not their religious beliefs, sermons, and services were educational enough. How crazy. Thank God they backed down from it. We need to make sure they never go back to it. That is why the Markey amendment needs to be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the Chair is pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first say the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment is not simple at all. It is not simple at all. By reinserting the word ``educational'' in front of the word ``religious,'' what the gentleman from Massachusetts is doing is giving the FCC the authority to decide which religious programming is educational enough according to their standards. That is precisely what they tried to do in December. It is precisely the wrong, stupid action they took in December that even my colleagues on the other side have condemned as stupid and for which they turned around with a 4-to-1 vote and reversed themselves. This amendment would give them the power to do it again. And at least one of the commissioners said, given the chance, she will do it again, she will put the commission in the business of deciding which religious program, which religious message is educational enough to satisfy a Federal bureaucrat. If it is not, the license can get pulled. Would that not be wonderful in America? Would we not be really blessed to have this amendment in the law, to give five federally appointed bureaucrats the right to say which religious messages are okay on these noncommercial stations and which are not? Now, the gentleman will make us believe that there are only a few of these stations, just a little rare exception somewhere. My friends, there are 800 to 1,000 religious radio broadcasters holding noncommercial licenses today in radio. All across America, there are religious organizations and family groups who have religious programming on these stations, and nobody until December, nobody in Washington had the nerve, had the audacity under our Constitution to suggest that they knew better than those programmers what was good religious programming, what was educational enough to satisfy the bureaucrats up here in Washington. Like bureaucrats in Washington know the value of religion in our homes and in our communities. Let me tell you where these stations are, they are across America. There are 23 religious television stations in America, 23, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), not just a few. There is one, for example, in Takoma, Washington, the Korean American Missions Incorporated. There is one in San Antonio, Texas, the Hispanic Community Educational TV, Incorporated. There is one in West Milford, New Jersey, Family Stations of New Jersey, Incorporated; The Word of God Fellowship in Denver, Colorado. They are across America. There are stations that own these noncommercial licenses and do religious broadcasting for the good of this country and the good of families all over America; and the bureaucrats in Washington would like the right to put them off the air because their religious views are not educational enough to satisfy whatever the standards of five commissioners sitting at the FCC are. For heaven's sake, do we really want to give them that power? If we really do, adopt this amendment; that is what it does. If we want to take the power away from the FCC to decide whether a religious message or program or religious church service is educational enough to meet these standards, whatever they are, then vote for this bill; that is all it does. It simply says for the future the FCC can no longer try to do the stupid thing they tried to do in December and the thing they would be allowed to do if the Markey amendment is adopted. We need to defeat this amendment and pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), from the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, again, to correct the Record, without the Markey amendment, the legislation, standing as it is, does not create any new standards to judge these licenses. The legislation codifies the words and the status quo, the old standard, the commission always used until December. It simply says that they will yield to the discretion of the religious broadcaster in its own programming, unless that discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, and they have always had that standard, that is, the standard in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I first yield myself 30 seconds to read my colleagues a list of associations in support of this legislation: The Christian Coalition; the American Family Association; Concerned Women for America; Family Research Council; Home School Legal Defense Association; American Association of Christian Schools; Justice Fellowship; Religious Freedom Coalition; Republican Jewish Coalition; Traditional Family Property, Inc.; Traditional Values Coalition; Vision America. There is huge support among the religious community for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. My friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, made an interesting speech, but he has it all wrong. We are not talking about the Sesame Street stations. There are 800 to 1,000 noncommercial religious broadcasters today on the radio. There are 23, counting the television stations in the pipe, religious television broadcasters on television holding noncommercial television licenses. That is the current state of the law. We are not talking about anything different than what currently occurs. If those religious broadcasters were not qualified to hold those licenses, because they are producing religious programming, they would not hold them today. The FCC tried to take them away, in effect, by deciding they were going to decide what programming could be on those programs. They were going to decide what religious messages were going to be on all those stations. This bill prevents that. Secondly, let me point out that for years these stations have operated as religious broadcasters. The FCC has always considered that the religious messages they promote all day long are currently considered primarily educational. That is the current law. The bill incorporates the current law only. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who has been a leader in the fight to prevent the FCC from content regulation of religious broadcasting. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 527, I call up the bill (H.R. 4201) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the service obligations of noncommercial educational broadcast stations, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the Record. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill creates a requirement on the commission to do comparative hearings to decide which religious broadcaster get a station. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current law which is incorporated in this bill has a four-point system that is purely sectarian, has no religious connotations at all. It deals with diversity, statewide networks, technical parameters, and establishes local entity points that are awarded to the winner of these licenses, totally no connection at all to whether or not this entity is religious. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who is in support of the legislation. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)