May 17, 2000

Today we are considering eight bills. Seven of them were reported unanimously by their subcommittees. They are good bills, and I applaud their sponsors and Members on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan manner to achieve worthy results. In particular, I want to commend the Chairman and Members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee for three bills that will enhance safety and security at the Department of Energy. Those reforms are long overdue.

I also strongly support H.R. 3489, the "Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act," and applaud its sponsors for bringing together a diverse group of cities, States, and industry to establish a uniform method of imposing taxes on interstate communications via wireless phones. That job was no small feat, and will bring tremendous benefits to both consumers and industry alike. Similarly, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act is an excellent bill that potentially could save many lives. Among other things, the bill provides a limited "Good Samaritan" immunity for people who acquire or use defibrillators.

Unfortunately, one bill is highly controversial, has not been constructed in a bipartisan fashion, and, in my view, takes precisely the wrong approach to dealing with a serious and difficult issue. H.R. 4201, the "Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act," purports to correct an extraordinarily unwise decision made by the FCC last December. In that case, the Commission assigned a noncommercial educational broadcast license to a religious programmer, which was, by itself, entirely proper under current rules.

However, the Commission, as it is so apt to do, blundered badly when it supplemented its order with what it called "additional guidance" on what kind of religious programming would be considered by the government to be educational in nature. As one would expect, the agency was attacked from both sides of the political spectrum for injecting itself into the business of evaluating program content.

The FCC’s decision was imprudent at best. But, unlike some other notable FCC foul-ups, the agency admitted its error and did something about it. Less than one month after issuing its "additional guidance," the Commission officially rescinded that portion of its Order. It would seem that a reasonable response by this Committee would be to declare victory and move on to address other matters important to the people.

But this Committee has developed a penchant for fixing problems that do not exist. Yesterday, the House passed a Commerce Committee bill dealing with Internet access charges that can only be described as "virtual legislation." Kafka himself could only appreciate the manner in which the House fabricated a solution ... to an imaginary problem ... created by a make-believe Congressman. And now, one day later, we meet to address yet another non-existent problem – one that was completely mooted back in January when the FCC repealed its controversial Order.

There is, however, an important distinction to be drawn between these two bills. The Internet bill was completely innocuous. While it was entirely unnecessary to protect consumers, it caused no direct or collateral damage, and the minority was able to support it. On the other hand, the bill before us today is ill-conceived, poorly vetted, and poses a dangerous threat to the future of noncommercial educational broadcasting in this country.

Worse, the bill is clearly an unconstitutional encroachment on the First Amendment, but the Committee insists that it be rushed through the legislative process apparently with little regard for that important matter. In my view, this kind of legislating simply tarnishes the reputation of this great institution, and serves none of us well.