[Senate Prints 117-20]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress}                                            { S. Prt.

  2d Session  }              COMMITTEE PRINT		   { 117-20

======================================================================

                     GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF COMMITTEE 
                                 REPORTS

                               __________

                        FOR THE USE OF THE STAFF

                                 OF THE

                  COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 
                              TRANSPORTATION

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                    

                  February 11, 2022.--Ordered to be printed
                  
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-827                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                 
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                    
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress
                             second session

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan             DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                 Melissa Porter, Acting Staff Director
                  John Keast, Minority Staff Director
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Introduction.....................................................     1

Essential Components of a Committee Report.......................     2

Purpose of the Bill..............................................     3

Background and Needs.............................................     4

Summary of Major Provisions......................................    11

Legislative History..............................................    13

Estimated Costs..................................................    15

Regulatory Impact Statement......................................    16

Congressionally Directed Spending................................    20

Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    22

Votes in Committee...............................................    28

Agency Comments..................................................    31

Supplemental, Minority, or Additional Views......................    32

Changes in Existing Law..........................................    37

Very Long or Very Short Measures.................................    42

Review and Filing of Report......................................    66

Things To Avoid..................................................    70

A Few Matters of Style...........................................    71

Appendix: How To Introduce a Bill................................    73


117th Congress}                                            { S. Prt.

  2d Session  }              COMMITTEE PRINT		   { 117-20

=====================================================================
 
               GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS

                                _______
                                

               February 11, 2022.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

                              Introduction

    While the Standing Rules of the Senate do not require a 
standing committee to file a written report accompanying a bill 
or resolution reported by the Committee, it has been the 
practice of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation to submit a written report whenever the 
Committee files a reported bill or resolution. This practice 
has applied equally to the reporting of bills and resolutions 
referred to the Committee and to original bills or resolutions 
reported by the Committee.
    Paragraph 4(a) of rule XVII of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that any report filed by a committee lie over 1 
day for consideration. The 1-day layover rule can be waived by 
unanimous consent. Paragraph 5 provides that any bill or 
resolution reported by a standing committee may not be 
considered in the Senate unless the reported bill or resolution 
has been available to Senators for at least 2 calendar days 
(excluding Sundays and legal holidays) before it is considered. 
The 2-day availability rule can be waived by mutual agreement 
of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or, presumably, 
by unanimous consent.
    A committee report does not have the force of law, but it 
is useful as a way of providing guidance to an administering 
officer, agency, or other interested party with respect to the 
manner in which a law, or a change in existing law, is to be 
implemented or enforced. In addition, the courts frequently 
refer to committee reports, as an important component of the 
legislative history of a statute, in interpreting provisions of 
law that may be ambiguous or the application of which to a 
particular set of circumstances is not clear on the face of the 
statute.
    This guide has been written to assist Committee staff in 
the preparation of committee reports that contain the elements 
required by the Standing Rules of the Senate and that are 
consistent in format and style. It is intended also to provide 
guidance with respect to circumstances in which deviation from 
the standard format, or the inclusion of optional components, 
may be appropriate.
               Essential Components of a Committee Report

    Except as noted in the detailed discussion of each 
component listed below, each committee report should include 
the following components in the following order:

   Purpose of the Bill
   Background and Needs
   Summary of Major Provisions
   Legislative History
   Estimated Costs
   Regulatory Impact Statement
   Congressionally Directed Spending
   Section-by-Section Analysis
   Votes in Committee (Rollcall)
   Agency Comments (Optional)
   Supplemental, Minority, or Additional Views
   Changes in Existing Law

    Note: The parts of the report that precede the purpose-of-
the-bill component are prepared by the Committee's Legislative 
Clerk. This includes the front page, the member and staff 
roster on the next page, and the head and introductory 
paragraph \1\ that precedes the purpose of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill joint resolution deg. (S. 
H.R. deg. ------) TITLE deg. to . . ., having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon [without amendment or  
with amendments or with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute)] 
and recommends that the bill joint resolution deg. [(as 
amended)] do pass. The matter in black brackets should reflect the 
Committee's action on the measure.
                          Purpose of the Bill

    This section of the report is intended to inform the 
reader, as quickly and simply as possible, of the main thrust 
of the reported bill. This can usually be accomplished in a 
single sentence for a simple measure and no more than three to 
five sentences for a lengthy or complex measure.
    The most common mistake in writing this section is to make 
it too long. Bear in mind that this section contains the first 
few sentences of the report, and the objective is to give the 
reader a quick overview of the subject matter of the bill. Save 
any detailed descriptions of the legislation, as well as 
arguments as to the need for the legislation, for later 
sections of the report.


                                 

    The purpose of the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S. 
165, as reported, is to enhance the security of cargo 
transported by air, particularly aboard passenger aircraft.

                                 

    The purpose of S. 886, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) Corps Confirmation Correction 
Legislation, is to ratify the otherwise legal appointments and 
promotions in the commissioned corps of NOAA that failed to be 
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent as required 
by law.

                                 

    The purpose of this legislation, as reported, is to 
reauthorize the United States Fire Administration (USFA) for 
fiscal years (FYs) 2004 through 2008, and re-establish the 
position of Administrator of the USFA. The legislation also 
would establish and authorize funding for programs under the 
USFA to support the development of voluntary consensus 
standards for new firefighting technology, improve coordination 
between Federal, State, and local fire officials, and authorize 
the National Fire Academy to train firefighters to respond to 
acts of terrorism.

                                 

    S. 1234 would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) 
(15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) to carry out the functions, powers, and 
duties of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission). The 
bill would authorize funding levels to be appropriated for 
fiscal years 2004 through 2007, as well as authorize the FTC to 
accept both reimbursement from other agencies that may seek the 
Commission's assistance, and gifts that do not create a 
conflict of interest. The bill also would improve the 
Commission's ability to provide more timely and effective 
international consumer protection.
                          Background and Needs

    This section of the report should set forth a concise 
summary of why the legislation is necessary or desirable. It 
often contains a brief description of an existing problem, the 
inadequacies of current programs or law in dealing with the 
problem, and the need to address the problem through new 
legislation by modifying the current law applicable to the 
circumstances that create the problem. Except for a lengthy, 
complex, or controversial bill, a few short paragraphs may 
suffice.
    An effort should be made here, also, to keep the written 
matter as concise and to-the-point as possible, consistent with 
providing an overview of what problem the bill is intended to 
address and how it proposes to address that problem.


                                 

    The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the seven uniformed 
services of the United States (the others are the four 
Department of Defense services, the Coast Guard, and the Public 
Health Service). The NOAA Corps is comprised of slightly over 
250 commissioned officers and operates a wide variety of 
specialized aircraft and ships used to conduct NOAA's 
environmental and scientific missions. Its commissioned 
officers provide NOAA with an important blend of operational, 
management, and technical skills that support the agency's 
science and surveying programs at sea, in the air, and ashore. 
Corps officers operate and manage NOAA's ships and aircraft as 
well as serve in the agency's research laboratories and program 
offices throughout the Nation and in remote locations around 
the world.
    The NOAA Corps officer appointments and promotions are 
similar to the other uniformed services and, under section 226 
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 3026) and its 
antecedent, require nomination by the President and must be 
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. 
Historically, the Commerce Committee has considered NOAA 
promotions, along with routine Coast Guard officer promotions, 
during Full Committee Executive Sessions.
    It recently came to the Committee's attention that NOAA has 
failed since October 1, 1999, to submit any of its NOAA Corps 
officer appointments and promotions to the President for 
nomination and subsequently to the Senate for its advice and 
consent. Since then, the NOAA Corps has made approximately 251 
appointments and promotions, involving approximately 196 
officers. An ongoing Department of Commerce investigation 
indicates these procedural problems may have existed prior to 
October 1, 1999, and additional officers' appointments and 
promotions may also be affected. These revelations raise 
serious questions concerning the validity of these appointments 
and promotions that could affect each individual officer's pay, 
entitlements, job status, and the ability to carry out the 
officer's official actions.
    To address this serious situation, the legislation is 
designed to provide a framework for retroactive appointments 
and promotions for the affected officers in a manner that will 
protect the professional and financial aspects of their 
positions, and that will ensure that all past actions taken in 
the line of duty by such officers after their appointments and/
or promotions are considered to have been official actions. The 
bill states that all actions performed in the line of duty by 
these NOAA corps officers are ratified and approved. In 
addition, the legislation states that all Federal agency 
actions (with respect to pay, benefits, and retirement) in 
relation to an unconfirmed NOAA corps officer shall be 
considered legally binding.
    The bill provides that the President, acting alone, can 
make appointments and promotions for up to 180 days to allow 
these officers to maintain their status until the full Senate 
gives its advice and consent for these appointments and 
promotions going forward. Once this bill is enacted into law, 
the Administration is expected to submit the list of these 
officers to the Senate for its advice and consent.

                                 

    Today, there are approximately 140 million wireless 
telephones in use in the United States. Several studies over 
the last decade have shown that most consumers cite safety and 
security (including the ability to communicate in an emergency) 
as their main reason for purchasing a cell phone. Even if their 
own lives are not affected, many Americans have indicated they 
are willing to be ``Good Samaritans'' and use their wireless 
phones to report emergencies to local public safety authorities 
when they see them occurring. Of the approximately 200 million 
calls placed to 911 each year, more than 56 million, or 28 
percent, of the calls are made from wireless phones. Some 
metropolitan areas show even higher percentages of wireless 911 
calls than the nationwide average, with several receiving a 
majority of their 911 calls from wireless phones.
    Unlike calls to 911 from land-based wireline telephones, 
most public safety operators answering wireless 911 calls do 
not have information regarding the name, telephone number, and 
location of the caller--referred to as enhanced 911 (E-911) 
services. Without this information, emergency response times 
may be delayed while the operators attempt to determine the 
location of the emergency. In many instances, wireless 911 
callers do not know their exact location (particularly in rural 
areas), and some who are injured or disoriented cannot respond 
to operators' questions regarding their location. Medical 
emergency and public safety responders speak of a ``golden 
hour''--the first hour after serious injury when there is the 
greatest chance of saving life. As time elapses, chances of 
survival diminish and the severity of injuries increase. Prompt 
and accurate location information--especially from the 
increasing numbers of wireless 911 calls--is therefore critical 
to delivering emergency assistance to victims within the first 
hour.

                        IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS

    Successful wireless E-911 implementation requires the 
cooperation of three discrete groups: wireless carriers, 
wireline telephone companies (also known as local exchange 
carriers), and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). A PSAP 
is the emergency operator dispatch point that receives 911 
calls for a community. There are approximately 6,100 PSAPs 
nationwide. In short, the wireless carrier must be able to 
determine the location of the caller, the local exchange 
carrier must carry that location information from the carrier 
to the PSAP, and the PSAP must be capable of receiving such 
information. In many ways, the initiation of wireless E-911 
implementation begins with the PSAP, because no other 
obligations are imposed on any other party until the PSAP 
submits a request for E-911 service.
    It is estimated that only 10 percent of the PSAPs 
nationwide have made requests to receive wireless E-911 
location information (known as ``Phase II'' requests). One 
major reason for the delay in PSAP requests is that PSAPs are 
not ready to receive the E-911 information that will be sent to 
them by wireless carriers. In order to receive this 
information, PSAPs must first make software and hardware 
upgrades in their operations centers, as well as make 
appropriate trunking arrangements with local wireline telephone 
companies to enable wireless E-911 data to pass from the 
wireless carrier to the PSAP. As required by the FCC, however, 
PSAPs also must have the means of covering their costs in order 
to make a valid request to the wireless carrier for E-911 
service. Absent a valid PSAP request, a wireless carrier is 
under no obligation to deploy E-911 services.

                         STATE FUNDING PROBLEMS

    The FCC's rules do not mandate any specific State action 
nor specify any particular mechanism for funding the technology 
and service capabilities necessary to enable the PSAP to make a 
valid service request. Some PSAPs are able to fund upgrades 
from existing State budgets, but most PSAPs must rely on funds 
collected pursuant to State authority for public safety 
services. Currently, over 40 States have established some type 
of wireless fee or surcharge on consumers' mobile phone bills 
to fund, either in whole or in part, PSAP upgrades for wireless 
E-911 service. In the States relying on monthly surcharges, 
subscribers' fees range from 20 cents to $2 per month, with the 
average about 60 cents per month. \2\ In many States, however, 
State laws do not specifically limit the use of wireless E-911 
surcharges to wireless E-911 upgrades. These States' surcharges 
can be used for other public safety purposes if not spent on 
wireless E-911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  NENA Fact Sheet: Enhanced Wireless Emergency Communications: 
Implementation Process and Status, National Emergency Number 
Association (NENA), October 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recently, State lawmakers and administrators have begun 
investigating the use of E-911 funds, and have discovered 
instances in which E-911 funds have been used for purposes 
other than the provision of E-911 service. Observers claim as 
many as 11 States have been ``raiding'' their collected E-911 
funds to satisfy other State obligations. In New York, for 
example, nearly $200 million collected as E-911 surcharges have 
been diverted for other public safety purposes, while the 
State's PSAPs have remained underfunded and unready to request 
E-911 service from carriers. Although State administrators 
supporting these diversions argue that their decisions are 
justified given more pressing State funding needs, 
investigators also have found some egregious examples of such 
funds being used to cover expenses for dry cleaning and lawn 
mowing services for State police (e.g., New York).

                                 

    Congress formed the United States Olympic Association 
(USOA) in 1950 under the ``Act to Incorporate the United States 
Olympic Association.'' In 1964, the USOA was modified and 
became the USOC. Additional modifications to the USOC resulted 
from a study conducted by President Gerald Ford's Commission on 
Olympic Sports (Ford Commission). From 1975 to 1977, the Ford 
Commission evaluated each Olympic sport and determined how to 
correct factional disputes between the sports. Senator Stevens, 
who served on the Ford Commission, sponsored what later became 
known as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which 
was enacted in 1978 (the Act). The Act named the USOC as the 
central coordinating organization for athletes and sports of 
the Olympic and Pan-American Games.
    In its current form, the USOC performs a variety of 
functions. It provides financial, educational, training, and 
medical support for Olympic athletes. The USOC receives no 
permanent funding from the Government. Though the 1978 charter 
granted the USOC several million dollars in seed money, the 
funds were never appropriated. \3\ Thus, the USOC supports its 
activities primarily through corporate sponsorship and 
licensing agreements for the rights to broadcast Olympic 
events. The USOC's current annual revenue is approximately $125 
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  In 1981, the USOC did receive a one-time appropriation from 
Congress of $10 million to compensate the USOC for lost revenue caused 
by the United States' boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The USOC is often criticized for being an unwieldy 
bureaucracy with a board of directors comprised of 124 members, 
and for being the subject of too many scandals. Some examples 
of scandals include, in 1980, 25 athletes sued the USOC for 
boycotting the 1980 Games, claiming that the USOC had violated 
their constitutional rights. In the early 1990s, the Committee 
was accused of buying out two USOC officials in order to hire a 
new USOC executive director. In 1991, the resignation of then-
USOC President Robert Helmick forced the USOC's special counsel 
to admit certain ethical problems with Helmick's leadership. 
And, in an effort to secure the selection to host the 2002 
Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, local organizing 
committee members were accused of taking bribes.
    Earlier this year, the USOC was again the subject of public 
embarrassment when then-USOC CEO Lloyd Ward became the subject 
of a USOC Ethics Committee investigation for a possible 
conflict-of-interest violation. The investigation was rumored 
to be the result of tension between Mr. Ward and the former 
USOC president, Marty Mankamyer. The Ethics Committee 
determined that Mr. Ward (a former CEO of Maytag) had committed 
two ``technical violations'' of the USOC's ethics code, and 
indicated to the Executive Committee that the problems could 
have been remedied through timely ethical compliance 
counseling. In the end, it was the Executive Committee that 
decided that the only punitive action to be taken against Mr. 
Ward would be the reduction of Mr. Ward's annual bonus by 
several hundred thousand dollars. In an act of protest of the 
Ethics Committee's decision, Executive Committee member Brian 
Derwin, Chief Ethics Compliance Officer, Patrick Rodgers, and 
three members of the 10-person Ethics Committee resigned their 
volunteer posts. Less than 1 month later, Ms. Mankamyer 
succumbed to intense USOC pressure to resign. The same pressure 
forced Lloyd Ward to resign on March 1, 2003.

                                 

    On November 16, 2001, Congress passed the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in response to the terrorist 
attacks on September 11th of that year. The Act, which was 
signed into law on November 19, 2001, implemented a new regime 
for aviation security and created the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) to oversee security for all modes of transportation. The 
TSA has since been transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). ATSA (Pub.L. 107-71) contained numerous 
provisions and deadlines designed to increase aviation security 
targeted at the safety and security of airline passengers.
    With respect to the security of air cargo, ATSA contained 
two key provisions. The first dealt with passenger aircraft and 
required that the TSA provide for the screening of all cargo 
and mail that will be carried aboard such aircraft (section 
110). Almost all passenger flights carry cargo alongside 
luggage in the belly of the plane. Such cargo can encompass 
anything from pallets of computer chips to refrigerated cartons 
of chicken. According to a Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) estimate, approximately 22 percent of all air cargo 
loaded in the United States in 2000 was carried on passenger 
flights.
    ATSA required that all checked airline bags be screened by 
explosive detection systems by December 31, 2002, which was 
later extended to 2003 for a limited number of airports. A 
similar timetable was not specified for screening cargo.
    The second provision required that a system must be in 
operation as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
ATSA (section 10), to screen, inspect, or otherwise ensure the 
security of all cargo that is to be transported in all-cargo 
aircraft.

                 I. ACTIVITY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

    The air cargo system involves numerous participants that 
all require some level of security oversight. Typically, a 
shipper takes packages to an indirect air carrier (IAC, also 
known as a freight forwarder). An IAC is defined as any person 
or entity, excluding an air carrier, that engages indirectly in 
the transportation of property by air, and uses the services of 
a passenger air carrier. This does not include the United 
States Postal Service. The IAC may consolidate packages from 
many shippers into single containers. The IAC then uses trucks, 
either its own or hired, to deliver the bulk freight to air 
carriers for transport.
    Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FAA was 
generally responsible for oversight of civil aviation security. 
The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 led to the passage of 
the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, which required 
the FAA to begin an accelerated 18-month research and 
development effort to find an effective explosives detection 
system to screen baggage and cargo. Following the 1996 crashes 
of ValuJet flight 592 and TWA flight 800, the White House 
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security was created to 
assess vulnerabilities of safety and security confronting 
aviation. The Commission recommended that the FAA implement a 
comprehensive plan to address the threat of explosives and 
other threatening objects in cargo and to work with industry to 
develop new initiatives in this endeavor. The FAA subsequently 
created Federal and industry partnerships, the Baseline Working 
Group, and later, the Cargo Working Group, to find ways to 
improve air cargo security.
    Under the FAA's program, front-line responsibility for 
screening air cargo fell on two groups: the carriers and IACs. 
Both were required to adopt and carry out FAA-approved security 
programs.
    The key element of FAA's cargo security program before 
September 11, 2001, was the Known Shipper Program. A known 
shipper is essentially one that has an established reputation 
and thus is ``known'' to the industry and to the FAA. This 
program allowed an air carrier or IAC to transport a package 
from a known shipper with no more screening than an examination 
of its exterior. Packages from unknown shippers would be 
screened by X-ray or physically inspected before being placed 
aboard a passenger aircraft. Under the FAA's cargo security 
program, IACs were not allowed to accept packages from unknown 
shippers. If the IAC does not have an existing relationship 
with the business that seeks to ship goods, it must follow 
established regulations to ensure the company is a trustworthy 
business. The FAA's security oversight and implementation 
responsibility of the Known Shipper Program was transferred 
through ATSA to the TSA.
    Before September 11, 2001, the DOT Inspector General (IG) 
had been conducting tests of cargo security. The IG found that 
air carriers and indirect air carriers were not always 
complying with the FAA's Known Shipper Program, and that the 
FAA had not developed and implemented an adequate policy or 
oversight system to ensure compliance.

                  II. ACTIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

    A number of important changes were implemented after 
September 11, 2001, regarding the shipment of cargo on 
passenger air carriers. These changes included the requirement 
that only cargo from known shippers could be accepted on 
passenger air carriers and all cargo from unknown shippers and 
mail weighing more than 16 ounces had to be diverted to all-
cargo air carriers.
    The Known Shipper Program continues to be TSA's primary 
means of compliance with ATSA screening mandates today. 
According to the agency, it has strengthened the process 
through which a shipper becomes ``known''. The TSA has 
developed a national database of known shippers and is re-
validating every business in the known shipper program.
    Many of the other changes implemented by TSA are sensitive 
or classified information.

                   III. AIR CARGO ISSUES AND CONCERNS

    The IG has expressed some concerns that the TSA's cargo 
security program is continuing to rely on the Known Shipper 
Program, which has weaknesses, and that very little cargo is 
actually screened. The IG believes that TSA must reevaluate its 
program to determine whether current procedures should be 
retained, identify new principles and controls that should be 
added, and develop a strategic plan to screen all cargo. The IG 
also is recommending that, until screening of all cargo is 
feasible, TSA develop and implement a plan for random screening 
of cargo using x-ray, canines, or explosives detection 
equipment. In addition, the IG advocates a requirement that a 
provider of cargo transportation lose its certification when 
TSA inspections and testing have continuously found the 
provider in noncompliance with cargo security requirements.
    The size and nature of air cargo can vary widely. Airlines 
are financially dependent on cargo, which carries higher profit 
margins than passenger traffic. One of the key problems with 
any attempt to screen all cargo on passenger aircraft at this 
time is that any type of physical inspection or electronic 
screening would be extremely expensive and time-consuming. Some 
industry observers believe that any changes causing additional 
expense or delay to the air cargo system could cause widespread 
disruption to United States businesses, which have grown 
dependent on moving goods rapidly, as well as creating further 
financial difficulties for the troubled United States airline 
industry.
                      Summary of Major Provisions

    This section should be used to set forth the major 
provisions of the bill in a summary fashion, with special 
emphasis on any change in policy contained in the reported 
bill. Special care should be taken to ensure that the summary 
accurately reflects the bill as reported. This section may be 
omitted in a report on a short bill, particularly if it would 
do nothing more than repeat the material in the ``Purpose of 
the Bill'' section.
    Bear in mind that this section is a summary of the major 
provisions of the bill. It should neither paraphrase the bill 
nor duplicate the section-by-section analysis that appears in a 
subsequent section of the report.
    This section should omit minor, technical, and conforming 
provisions of the reported bill.


                                 

    S. 1404 would do the following:

   Reduce the size of the existing USOC board of 
        directors from 124 members to nine elected members, 
        five of whom would be independent, two representatives 
        of the Athletes Advisory Council (AAC), and two 
        representatives of the National Governing Bodies 
        Council (NGBC) (in addition, the speaker of a newly 
        formed assembly and the U.S. members of the 
        International Olympic Committee (IOC) would serve on 
        the board as ex officio members).
   Designate the board as the principal governing body 
        of the USOC.
   Require that the board appoint a chief executive 
        officer to carry out the policies and priorities of the 
        USOC.
   Require that the board establish four standing 
        committees of the board (audit, compensation, ethics, 
        and nominating and governance).
   Create an assembly consisting of the many USOC 
        stakeholders as provided in section 220504 of the Act, 
        including a maximum of three individuals who 
        represented the United States at the Olympics not 
        within the preceding 10 years.
   Require that the assembly have authority as provided 
        by the board to determine matters pertaining to the 
        Olympic Games.
   Require that the assembly elect a speaker.
   Require the board to establish whistleblower 
        procedures for the treatment of complaints received by 
        the USOC, as well as procedures to protect employees 
        from retaliation for submitting a complaint.
   Modify the existing ombudsman function.
   Increase the operational and financial transparency 
        of the USOC by requiring the USOC to report to Congress 
        and the President on a biennial basis.
   Provide basic ethics and compliance guidance to the 
        USOC ethics committee.
   Allow the National Senior Games Association of Baton 
        Rouge, Louisiana, to use the words ``Senior Olympics'' 
        to promote national athletic competition among senior 
        citizens.

                                 

    S. 165 would provide for several steps to improve the 
security of air cargo, particularly that which is carried 
aboard passenger aircraft. The TSA would be required to develop 
a strategic plan to ensure that all air cargo is screened, 
inspected, or otherwise made secure. TSA also would be required 
to develop a system for the regular inspection of air cargo 
shipping facilities. A database of known shippers would be 
established in order to bolster the Known Shipper Program. 
Indirect air carriers could have their certificates revoked if 
TSA finds that they are not adhering to security laws or 
regulations. The existing Federal security program for indirect 
air carriers would be reviewed and assessed for possible 
improvements. TSA would develop a security training program for 
persons who handle air cargo. All cargo carriers would be 
required to develop security plans that would be subject to 
approval by the TSA.
    S. 165 also would alter a provision in ATSA to expand the 
requirements of background checks for alien flight school 
applicants to include all aircraft instead of aircraft weighing 
12,500 pounds or more.
    S. 165 also would require a number of studies to be 
undertaken by the Department of Transportation and the 
Department of Homeland Security.
                          Legislative History

    This section of the report should set forth a concise 
legislative history of the bill as reported. That history is 
typically formatted to a boilerplate that includes the date of 
introduction, the sponsor, an up-to-date list of cosponsors 
(some of whom may have been added after the introduced bill was 
printed), and the Executive Session at which it was considered 
by the Committee. It may also contain information about any 
hearings on the bill held by the Committee, and a statement 
with respect to companion bills introduced in the House of 
Representatives and a discussion of similar bills, including a 
description of any action taken with respect to such other 
bills.
    Note that any rollcall votes during the Executive Session 
at which the bill was considered by the Committee are reported 
in a separate section of the report.
    An excessively long and detailed legislative history 
interrupts the continuity of a committee report, so this 
information should be provided in one or two brief paragraphs. 
It is not necessary to list witnesses or excerpt their 
testimony in this section, as that information is available in 
the hearing record. Since the focus of the report should be on 
the measure being reported during the current session, one 
generally should avoid recounting the legislative history of 
similar measures considered in previous Congresses. This does 
not preclude discussion of other measures and action by 
previous sessions, however, where that discussion is an 
important part of the legislative history of the current 
measure.


                                 

    S. 1294 was introduced on May 2, 2019, by Senator Wicker 
(for himself and Senator Klobuchar) and was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate. Senators Young and Baldwin are additional cosponsors. 
On May 15, 2019, the Committee met in open Executive Session 
and, by voice vote, ordered S. 1294 reported favorably without 
amendment.

                                 

    A reauthorization of MARAD is traditionally approved by the 
Committee annually and typically attached to the annual 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
    S. 1439, the Maritime Administration Authorization and 
Enhancement Act of 2019, was introduced on May 14, 2019, by 
Senator Wicker (for himself and Senator Cantwell) and was 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate. On May 15, 2019, the Committee 
met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 
1439 reported favorably with amendments.
    The Committee held hearings entitled, ``The State of the 
American Maritime Industry'' on March 6, 2019, and ``Federal 
Maritime Agencies: Ensuring a Safe, Secure, and Competitive 
Future'' on April 4, 2019, to assess the state of maritime and 
the priorities for 2020.

                                 

    S. 553, the Blockchain Promotion Act of 2019, was 
introduced on February 26, 2019, by Senator Young (for himself 
and Senator Markey) and was referred to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. On July 
10, 2019, the Committee met in open Executive Session and, by 
voice vote, ordered S. 553 reported favorably with amendments 
offered by Senator Lee to improve the bill by clarifying that 
members of the Blockchain Working Group serve without pay and 
that the working group itself terminates when it submits the 
report required by the bill.
    Similar legislation, H.R. 1361, the Blockchain Promotion 
Act of 2019, was introduced on February 26, 2019, by 
Representative Matsui [D-HI] (for herself and Representative 
Guthrie [R-KY-2]) and was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce of the House of Representatives. On February 27, 
2019, that bill was referred to that Committee's Subcommittee 
on Communications and Technology.

                            Estimated Costs

    Paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires reports for each bill or joint resolution 
reported by a committee to include an estimate of the cost of 
carrying out the reported measure for the 5 fiscal years 
following the fiscal year in which it is reported. This rule 
applies to each reported bill or joint resolution, without 
regard to whether it specifically authorizes or requires the 
expenditure of funds.
    The cost estimate is an important element of the report and 
may become a critical factor in the consideration of a reported 
bill, affecting the decision of the Budget Committee to clear a 
bill for floor consideration or subjecting the bill to a point 
of order.
    Cost estimates are prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) and are transmitted with a cover letter addressed 
to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
    The Majority Deputy Staff Director facilitates the cost 
estimate process by sending a copy of the reported bill draft 
text to a CBO analyst as soon as possible after the mark-up. In 
addition, the Majority Deputy Staff Director should promptly 
apprise the analyst of any subsequent revisions to that text or 
any additional information that may be important in estimating 
the cost of implementing the measure. Finally, the CBO analyst 
is alerted to the anticipated filing date for the report.
    Because of the number of legislative measures on which the 
CBO may be working at any given time, the need for specialized 
analysis of the impact of legislation, and the complexity of 
the estimating process, it may be several days or even weeks 
before the estimate can be released. Under no circumstances 
should staff hold off on preparing a committee report until the 
cost estimate is received from CBO.
    Once the official cost estimate has been made available by 
CBO to the Committee, the Legislative Clerk will insert it into 
the report.
    In extraordinary circumstances, such as the last week 
before adjournment, it may be necessary for the Committee to 
waive this requirement.
    The waiver language is as follows:

        In compliance with subsection (a)(3) of paragraph 11 of 
        rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the 
        Committee states that, in its opinion, it is necessary 
        to dispense with the requirements of paragraphs (1) and 
        (2) of that subsection in order to expedite the 
        business of the Senate.
                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires reports for each bill or joint resolution 
reported by a committee to include ``an evaluation . . . of the 
regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out the 
bill or joint resolution.''
    Specifically, this rule requires that the evaluation 
include the following:

   An estimate of the number of individuals and 
        businesses who would be regulated and a determination 
        of the groups and classes of such individuals and 
        businesses.
   A determination of the economic impact of such 
        regulation on the individuals, consumers, and 
        businesses affected.
   A determination of the impact on the personal 
        privacy of the individuals affected.
   A determination of the amount of additional 
        paperwork that will result from the regulations to be 
        promulgated pursuant to the bill or joint resolution, 
        which may include--
     estimates of the amount of time and financial 
            costs required of affected parties, showing whether 
            the effects of the bill or joint resolution could 
            be substantial; and
     reasonable estimates of the recordkeeping 
            requirements that may be associated with the bill 
            or joint resolution.

    Staff members should not treat the regulatory impact 
statement as mere boilerplate. Unlike the cost estimate, which 
is prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, there is no 
office to which the preparation of the regulatory impact 
statement may be delegated. Resources available to the staff 
for preparation of the statement include testimony presented at 
hearings, the administering Federal agency for any program 
established or modified by the legislation, and the 
Congressional Research Service.
    Particular care should be taken in stating any expected 
increase or decrease in regulatory burden, as the committee 
report may be cited during floor debate by opponents of the 
Committee's reported bill or joint resolution. The Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) in the past 
has informally monitored all regulatory impact statements and 
may send a letter to the chairman of any committee that files a 
statement HSGAC considers to be inadequate.
    Ultimately, however, the staff member must ensure that the 
regulatory impact statement accurately and completely reflects 
any major changes in regulatory activity. When regulatory 
activity will be increased, the staff member must provide a 
full and effective explanation as to the need for the increased 
regulation. Any decrease in regulatory burden should be noted 
as carefully and thoroughly as any increase in regulatory 
burden.
    Finally, if the bill or joint resolution would not affect 
any of the regulatory burdens for which a determination is 
required, the report should reflect that assessment. Thus, if a 
bill would merely continue existing programs with little or no 
change in the regulatory impact of those programs, a concise, 
one paragraph regulatory impact statement will suffice.
    In extraordinary circumstances, such as bills or joint 
resolutions ordered reported (or reports written) during the 
last week before adjournment, it may be necessary for the 
Committee to waive this requirement.

    The waiver language is as follows:

        In compliance with subsection (b)(2) of paragraph 11 of 
        rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the 
        Committee states that, in its opinion, it is necessary 
        to dispense with the requirements of paragraph (1) of 
        that subsection in order to expedite the business of 
        the Senate.

    The no-impact language is as follows:

        Because S. ------ does not create any new programs, the 
        legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, 
        and will result in no additional reporting 
        requirements. The legislation will have no further 
        effect on the number or types of individuals and 
        businesses regulated, the economic impact of such 
        regulation, the personal privacy of affected 
        individuals, or the paperwork required from such 
        individuals and businesses.


                                 

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

The bill, as reported, will clarify the Coast Guard's existing 
authority to establish separate lines dividing the high seas 
and inland waters for purposes of determining the applicability 
of inland navigational rules and various marine safety laws. It 
will have no effect on the number of individuals regulated or 
on the personal privacy of such persons. For the operators of 
barges within the lines of demarcation, however, the costs of 
compliance with regulations and the amount of paperwork 
required for such compliance will be reduced.

                                 

                       NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

    The bill would require the development of Federal inter-
agency assessments on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, as well 
as prediction and response plans at the request of State, 
Tribal, and local governments. It does not authorize any new 
regulations and therefore will not subject any individuals or 
businesses to new regulations.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

    The bill would authorize $26 million in FY 2004, $26.5 
million in FY 2005, $27 million in FY 2006, $27.5 million for 
FY 2007, and $28 million for FY 2008 in appropriations to the 
Secretary of Commerce. These funding levels are relatively 
modest and are not expected to have an inflationary impact on 
the Nation's economy.

                                PRIVACY

    The bill would not have any adverse impact on the personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               PAPERWORK

    The bill is not anticipated to create additional paperwork.

                                 

                       NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

    S. 165 is intended to improve aviation security by making 
modifications to Public Law 107-71, the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act (ATSA). The bill affects TSA and 
other entities already subject to TSA rules and regulations, 
and therefore the number of persons covered should be 
consistent with the current levels of individuals impacted 
under the provisions that are addressed in the bill.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

    S. 165 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the 
Nation's economy. It is anticipated that sections 2 through 6 
would have positive economic impacts to their respective areas, 
and should provide significant support to the aviation 
industry. The bill addresses cargo security and would authorize 
the necessary funding to establish a system that ensures all 
air cargo is secure by requiring TSA and the air cargo industry 
to take steps to protect the system.

                                PRIVACY

    S. 165 would have minimal effect on the privacy rights of 
individuals, but a provision on identification training raises 
the issue of a person proving their identity, potentially with 
the aid of technology. The use of biometrics and other 
identifiers raise a number of questions that need to be 
addressed by TSA to ensure that the privacy rights of 
individuals are protected. Senator Wyden's provision is 
intended to ensure privacy for passenger screening.

                               PAPERWORK

    The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in 
paperwork burdens resulting from the passage of this 
legislation. In those areas where the bill does require 
additional paperwork, it is aimed at improving the security of 
the national air transportation system. S. 165 would require 
the establishment of a database to improve the system by which 
known shippers of cargo are identified, and would require 
reports to Congress on several security matters addressed by 
other provisions.

                                 

                       NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

    Section 202(5) of this legislation would direct the 
Administrator of the USFA (the Administrator) to support the 
development of new voluntary consensus standards for new 
firefighting technologies through national voluntary consensus 
standards organizations. Recipients of grants through the 
Assistance to Firefighters program, as defined by section 33 of 
the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
2229), would be required by regulation to purchase equipment 
for which applicable voluntary consensus standards have been 
established.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

    This legislation would not have an adverse economic impact 
on the Nation. The bill would promote the development of more 
effective equipment and the establishment of better 
coordination and training for response to fires, terrorist 
attacks, and other national emergencies.

                                PRIVACY

    S. 1152 would not have a negative impact on the personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               PAPERWORK

    The legislation would not increase paperwork requirements 
for private individuals or businesses. The bill would require 
two reports from the Federal Government. The first report would 
be from the Administrator to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
Committee on Science, within 90 days after the enactment of 
this legislation, on the need for a strategy concerning the 
deployment of volunteers and emergency response personnel, 
including a national credentialing system, in the event of a 
national emergency. The second report would be from the Under 
Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response at the 
Department of Homeland Security to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of 
Representatives Committee on Science, within 180 days after the 
date of enactment, on revisions that the Under Secretary has 
made to the Federal Response Plan for responding to terrorist 
attacks, particularly in urban areas, including fire detection 
and suppression, and related emergency services. The 
legislation also would establish a $3 million grant program for 
fire fighting equipment necessary to fight fires using foam in 
remote areas without access to water. Applicants to this grant 
program would have to file documents to apply for this program.
                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    Section 521 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government 
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-81) amended the Standing Rules of the 
Senate by adding a new rule XLIV, ``Congressionally Directed 
Spending and Related Items'' that requires the Committee to 
identify ``congressionally directed spending items'' in 
committee reports. A bill reported by the Committee that 
contains such an item is subject to a point of order unless the 
Majority Leader certifies that each such item has been 
identified ``through lists, charts, or other similar means 
including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to 
the Committee for each identified item.''

                           DISCLOSABLE ITEMS

    Paragraph 5(a) of the rule defines the term 
``congressionally directed spending item'' as ``a provision or 
report language included primarily at the request of a Senator 
providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of 
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other 
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, 
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or 
targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional 
district, other than through a statutory or administrative 
formula-driven or competitive award process''. The rule applies 
also to ``limited tax benefits'' and ``limited tariff 
benefits'', but the Committee would rarely, if ever, include 
such items in its reported bills because of jurisdictional 
considerations.
    Paragraph 4(b) of the rule requires a committee that 
reports a bill or joint resolution that includes a 
congressionally directed spending item, or that includes such 
an item in the committee report, to identify the item on a 
publicly accessible congressional website through lists, 
charts, or other similar means ``as soon as practicable''. The 
items are to be identified by the name of each Senator who 
submitted a request to the Committee for each item. The 
availability on the Internet of a committee report that 
contains this information satisfies this requirement.

                         WHAT MUST BE DISCLOSED

    Paragraph 1(a)(1) of the rule requires a disclosable item 
to be identified through lists, charts, or other similar means, 
including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to 
the committee for each identified item.

             INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY SENATOR'S OFFICE

    Paragraph 6(a) of the rule requires a Senator who requests 
a congressionally directed spending item in a bill or joint 
resolution to provide a written statement to the chairman and 
ranking member that includes--
          (1) the Senator's name;
          (2) the name and location of the intended recipient, 
        or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the 
        intended location of the activity;
          (3) the purpose of the item; and
          (4) a certification that neither the Senator nor the 
        Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in 
        the item.

                              48-HOUR RULE

    Paragraph 1(a)(2) of the rule requires the Majority Leader 
to certify that the disclosed information has been available on 
a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable 
format for at least 48 hours before the Senate votes on a 
motion to proceed to consider the bill.


                                 

    In accordance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following identification of congressionally directed spending 
items contained in the bill, as reported:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section             Earmark/Provision             Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization..........  Construction of         Senator Kerry
                          Chelsea Street Bridge
                          in Chelsea, MA.
Section 103............  Web-based risk          Senator Kerry
                          management data
                          system.
Section 503............  Coast Guard to          Senator Kerry
                          maintain LORAN-C
                          Navigation System.
Section 705............  Olympic Coast National  Senator Cantwell
                          Marine Sanctuary.
Section 707............  Improved Coordination   Senator Cantwell
                          with Tribal
                          governments.
Section 716............  Vessel traffic risk     Senator Stevens
                          assessments.
Section 717............  Oil spill liability     Senator Stevens
                          trust fund investment
                          amount data.
Section 904............  Data..................  Senator Stevens
Section 918............  Fur Seal Act            Senator Stevens
                          authorization.
Section 919............  Study of relocation of  Senator Clinton
                          Coast Guard Sector
                          Buffalo facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                                 

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following identification of congressionally directed spending 
items contained in the bill, as reported:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section                 Provision                 Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 805............  Olympic Coast National  Senator Cantwell
                          Marine Sanctuary.
Section 814............  Oil spill liability     Senator Begich
                          trust fund investment
                          amount.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    This section of the report contains a detailed analysis of 
the reported bill. It begins with the first section of the bill 
and proceeds in numerical order by section until all sections 
of the bill have been discussed.
    The discussion of each section should contain such analysis 
and amplification as is necessary to make clear the intent of 
the provision. If the intent of the provision is evident on its 
face, no further amplification is needed or desirable. The 
staff member should merely describe that section, taking care 
to be sure that the description does not appear to change the 
meaning of the provision in any way.
    There will be instances in which the Committee wishes to 
amplify the intent of a provision, including--

   expressing the Committee's view or expectation as to 
        how a provision is to be implemented;
   providing examples of how complex provisions are 
        intended to work in real-life situations; and
   providing guidance as to how qualifying words and 
        phrases, such as ``reasonable'', ``substantial'', and 
        ``to the greatest extent practicable'' should be 
        interpreted.

    Particular care should be taken in writing such material, 
as the courts and administering agencies may turn to the 
section-by-section analysis for guidance in interpreting the 
statutory language, particularly if its application to a 
specific set of circumstances is unanticipated or unclear. If 
the section-by-section analysis is carelessly written, the risk 
that the court or administering agency may reach an 
interpretation that is at odds with the Committee's 
expectations is increased.
    If the text of a section was changed significantly by 
amendment during the mark-up, it may be helpful to describe the 
text of the section as it appeared in the original text before 
describing the section as amended so a reader may more easily 
grasp the policy concerns of the Committee in adopting the 
amendment.
    While each section of a bill must be described, it is not 
necessary to include a description of every subsection. If, on 
the other hand, a subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, or 
clause is critical to the interpretation of the section, then 
it should be separately described. The analysis of a section 
setting forth the definition of various terms used in a bill 
might read as follows: ``Section 2 contains the definitions of 
26 terms used in the bill, of which the most important are the 
following: . . .''.


\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Because of length, only portions of the section-by-section 
analyses are shown in the examples).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 

Section 1. Short title; table of contents.

    This section would provide that the bill may be cited as 
the ``Preventing Opioid and Drug Impairment in Transportation 
Act''. This section also provides a table of contents for the 
bill.

                                 

Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide that the bill may be cited as 
the ``Blockchain Promotion Act of 2019''.

Section 2. Working group to recommend definition of blockchain 
        technology.

    Subsection (a) of this section would establish definitions 
for two terms used throughout the bill.
    Subsection (b) of this section would require the Secretary 
of Commerce, within 90 days of enactment, to establish within 
the Department of Commerce a working group referred to as the 
``Blockchain Working Group''.
    Subsection (c) of this section would establish the 
membership of the Blockchain Working Group. The Secretary of 
Commerce would designate a cross-section of Federal agencies 
that could use, or benefit from, blockchain technology to be 
represented on the Blockchain Working Group. The head of each 
Federal agency so designated would then be required to appoint 
an officer or employee to serve as a member of the Blockchain 
Working Group. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce would 
appoint nongovernmental stakeholders with respect to blockchain 
technology to serve on the Blockchain Working Group. Subsection 
(c) further identifies certain nongovernmental stakeholder 
groups that must be represented, including: (1) information and 
communications technology manufacturers, suppliers, software 
providers, service providers, and vendors; (2) subject matter 
experts representing industrial sectors, other than the 
technology sector, that the Secretary determines could use, or 
benefit from blockchain technology; (3) small, medium, and 
large businesses; (4) individuals and institutions engaged in 
academic research relating to blockchain technology; (5) 
nonprofit organizations and consumer advocacy groups engaged in 
activities relating to blockchain technology; and (6) rural and 
urban stakeholders. Finally, subsection (c) would provide that 
members of the Blockchain Working Group shall serve without 
pay.
    Subsection (d) of this section would require the Blockchain 
Working Group to provide a report to Congress within 1 year of 
the bill's enactment. This report would need to include the 
following:

   A recommended definition of blockchain technology;
   Recommendations for a study to be conducted by the 
        Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
        Information, in coordination with the Federal 
        Communications Commission, on the impact of blockchain 
        technology on electromagnetic spectrum policy;
   Recommendations for a study to examine a range of 
        potential applications, including nonfinancial 
        applications, for blockchain technology; and
   Recommendations for opportunities for Federal 
        agencies to use blockchain technology.

    Subsection (d) also would permit the Blockchain Working 
Group to consider any recommendations contained in the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Internal Report 8202 
entitled, ``Blockchain Technology Overview,'' in preparing the 
report under section 2(d).
    The Committee is aware that various States have adopted or 
are working to adopt their own definition for blockchain 
technology. The Committee also understands that various other 
public and private sector groups are working to craft a common, 
standard definition of blockchain technology. The Committee 
intends for the Blockchain Working Group to fully consider 
these ongoing efforts to create a standard definition for 
blockchain technology, for it to consult with stakeholders that 
have worked on these efforts, and for it to recommend a 
definition that is consistent with such efforts. In addition, 
the Committee does not intend for the work of the Blockchain 
Working Group to supplant definitions adopted at the State 
level.
    Subsection (e) of this section would provide that the 
Blockchain Working Group shall terminate on the date on which 
it submits the report to Congress under section 2(d).

                                 

Section 2. Authorization of appropriations.

    This section would amend section 32(a) of the CPSA to 
authorize appropriations for the CPSC not to exceed $60,000,000 
for fiscal year 2004, $66,800,000 for fiscal year 2005, 
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $73,600,000 for fiscal 
year 2007.

Section 3. FTE staffing levels.

    This section would amend section 4(g) of the CPSA to 
authorize the Commission to hire and maintain a full-time 
equivalent staff of 471 persons throughout the reauthorization 
period.

Section 4. Executive director and officers.

    This section would amend section 4(g) of the CPSA to 
conform the Commission's employee position titles that 
currently exist but that have not been formally authorized. No 
staff title changes entail the re-designation of career staff 
as political staff, or vice versa.

Section 5. Substantial product hazard recalls.

    This section would amend section 15 of the CPSA to 
authorize the Commission to conduct defective product recall 
notification otherwise required of a manufacturer, retailer, or 
distributor under the CPSA. Pursuant to this section, in the 
event that the Commission makes a preliminary hazard 
determination that there exists a Class A or B product hazard 
(as defined in the CPSC handbook), and the Commission finds 
that the manufacturer, retailer, or distributor is financially 
unable to provide adequate notification to the consumers of the 
product as required by the CPSA and that such notification is 
the public interest, then the Commission may provide 
notification. This section would require that within 120 days 
of enactment, the Commission prescribe strict standards for 
determining when a manufacturer is financially unable to effect 
adequate notifications required by the CPSA.

                                 

Section 3. Chairman designated with Senate confirmation.

    Section 3 would make the President's designation of one of 
the STB members to serve as Chairman subject to Senate 
confirmation.

Section 4. Expedited procedure for small rate challenges.

    Section 4 would require the STB to issue new regulations to 
address small rate challenges within 180 days following 
enactment. The rules would establish standards for determining 
what rate cases will be eligible to use expedited procedures 
taking into account the size of the shipper, the value of the 
case and other relevant factors, and establish the specific 
test or tests for determining whether the challenged rate is 
reasonable. Filing fees in small rate cases would not exceed 
the fee charged to bring a civil action in United States 
District Court. An initial decision could be made by an ALJ, 
with an opportunity to appeal the ALJ's decision to the Board. 
Finally, the amendment would require the STB to make 
recommendations to Congress for any additional legislative 
changes the Board determines are necessary to address the 
handling of small rate cases.

Section 5. Application of certain agreements.

    This section would codify the voluntary agreement reached 
by railroad labor and railroad management in March 2001 with 
respect to the implementation of collective bargaining 
agreements in the event of additional mergers. It provides that 
when newly consolidated rail operations involving the 
signatories to the agreement are subject to multiple collective 
bargaining agreements, the labor union parties, rather than the 
rail management parties, may choose which collective bargaining 
agreement will govern the new operations. Codifying this 
agreement would ensure that it will not be set aside by STB-
appointed arbitrators in the event of another round of mergers.

                                 

Section 2. Definitions.

    Section 2 would define the key terms, ``Administrator'' and 
``NASA''.

Section 3. Findings.

    Section 3 would identify key findings of the bill 
concerning the history, the future, and the value of programs 
at NASA.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 101. Exploration capabilities.

    Section 101 would authorize funding in the following areas:
          (1) International Space Station;
          (2) Space Shuttle;
          (3) Space Flight Support;
          (4) Transportation Systems; and
          (5) Human and Robotic Technology.
The funding amounts for each of these areas for FY 2005 through 
FY 2009 are as shown in Figure 3.

                                         FIGURE 3--AUTHORIZATION LEVELS
                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2005      2006      2007      2008      2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Exploration Capabilities:
    International Space Station...............................     1,863     1,764     1,780     1,779     2,115
    Shuttle...................................................     4,319     4,326     4,314     4,027     3,030
    Space Flight Support......................................       492       435       430       456       453
    Transportation Systems....................................       689     1,261     1,624     1,423     1,863
    Human and Robotic Tech....................................     1,079     1,303     1,301     1,370     1,433
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration and Aeronautics:
    Space Science.............................................     4,138     4,404     4,906     5,520     5,561
    Earth Science.............................................     1,485     1,390     1,368     1,343     1,474
    Biological/Physical Research..............................     1,049       950       938       941       944
    Aeronautics Technology....................................       919       957       938       926       942
    Education.................................................       169       169       171       170       170
    Inspector General.........................................        28        29        30        31        32
    TEA.......................................................        15        16        16        16        17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL...................................................    16,245    17,003    17,816    18,002    18,034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 102. Exploration, science, and aeronautics.
    Section 102 would authorize funding in the following areas:
        (1) Space Science;
        (2) Earth Science;
        (3) Biological and Physical Research;
        (4) Aeronautics Technology; and
        (5) Education.
The funding amounts for each of these areas for FY 2005 through 
FY 2009 are as shown in Figure 3.

                                 

Section 105. Total authorizations.
    Section 105 would provide the total authorization levels 
for NASA for FY 2005 through FY 2009 and are as shown in Figure 
3. The bill would provide authorizations for a total of 5 years 
for NASA. Many research projects involved several years of 
effort before results can be realized. The Committee 
acknowledges that many things can change within a 5-year 
period. Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned that NASA has 
not continued its support for certain research areas for the 
entire duration of the authorization period. During the 
previous NASA authorization act (Pub.L. 106-391), authorization 
was included for immediate clinical trials for islet 
transplantation in patients with type I diabetes utilizing 
immunoisolation technologies derived from NASA space flights. 
NASA funded the initial research into this area but failed to 
provide all of the authorized levels prescribed by the 
authorization legislation. The research has progressed 
successfully while NASA has missed an opportunity to support 
the space technology for the development of a bio-mechanical 
system that may be used by medical professionals to treat 
diabetic patients as well as many other hormone deficient 
diseases.
                           Votes in Committee

    Paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires bills or joint resolutions ordered reported by 
a committee to include ``a tabulation of the votes cast by each 
member of the committee in favor of and in opposition to such 
measure or matter.'' The committee report, thus, must include a 
description of, and a list of the votes for and against, any 
amendment considered during mark-up on which there is a 
rollcall vote, as well as any rollcall vote ordering a bill or 
joint resolution to be reported. Any votes made by proxy should 
be indicated as such.
    The description may also include a short statement of any 
measure adopted by voice vote that is subsequently modified by 
action taken by rollcall vote.
    In recent practice (since the 108th Congress) the Committee 
has agreed at the beginning of an Executive Session to report 
some or all of the bills on the agenda subject to further 
amendment. This is usually phrased as a unanimous consent 
request to a motion, offered typically by the ranking member, 
that the measures be reported ``subject to further amendment''. 
For reporting purposes, this consent to the Chairman's 
unanimous consent request is treated as if it were a voice 
vote. Occasionally, this practice has extended to include the 
adoption, by voice vote, of a package of amendments (usually 
referred to as ``a manager's amendment'') or a substitute 
amendment ``subject to further amendment''. After agreeing to 
the motion, the Committee may proceed to further consideration 
of the bills ordered reported and may adopt additional 
amendments by voice or rollcall vote. (This is the reverse of 
the Senate floor procedure under which all amendments are 
disposed of before a vote is taken on a bill as amended.) A 
short description of the action taken by voice vote will 
explain more clearly to the reader what the Committee did.
    The Committee Clerk keeps a tally sheet record of the 
rollcall votes taken during an Executive Session and that 
record is part of the official records of the Committee. The 
Committee's Legislative Clerk will prepare and format the list 
of votes for the report, but the description of the subject 
matter on which the vote was taken is written by the Committee 
staff.


                                 

    Senator Ensign offered an amendment, to the amendment (in 
the nature of a substitute) offered by Senator McCain, to 
increase the number of extraperimeter slots at Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport. By rollcall vote of 11 yeas and 11 
nays as follows, the amendment was defeated [OR was adopted]:
        YEAS--11                      NAYS--11
Mr. Stevens\1\                      Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Burns                           Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Lott                            Mr. Allen
Mrs. Hutchison\1\                   Mr. Hollings
Mr. Brownback\1\                    Mr. Inouye\1\
Mr. Smith                           Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Ensign                          Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Wyden                           Mr. Breaux\1\
Mrs. Boxer                          Mr. Dorgan
Ms. Cantwell                        Mr. Nelson
Mr. McCain                          Mr. Lautenberg

    \1\By proxy

      Mr. Hollings made a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which the Ensign amendment was defeated. By rollcall vote of 12 
yeas and 10 nays as follows, Mr. McCain voting present, the 
motion carried:
        YEAS--12                      NAYS--10
Mr. Stevens\1\                      Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Burns                           Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Lott                            Mr. Allen
Mrs. Hutchison                      Mr. Inouye\1\
Mr. Brownback                       Mr. Rockefeller\1\
Mr. Smith                           Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Ensign                          Mr. Breaux\1\
Mr. Sununu                          Mr. Dorgan\1\
Mr. Hollings                        Mr. Nelson
Mr. Wyden\1\                        Mr. Lautenberg
Mrs. Boxer
Ms. Cantwell

    \1\By proxy

    The Committee reconsidered the vote by which the Ensign 
amendment was defeated. By rollcall vote of 12 yeas and 11 nays 
as follows, the amendment was adopted:
        YEAS--12                      NAYS--11
Mr. Stevens\1\                      Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Burns                           Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Lott                            Mr. Allen
Mrs. Hutchison                      Mr. Hollings
Mr. Brownback                       Mr. Inouye\1\
Mr. Smith                           Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Ensign                          Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Sununu                          Mr. Breaux\1\
Mr. Wyden\1\                        Mr. Dorgan\1\
Mrs. Boxer\1\                       Mr. Nelson
Ms. Cantwell                        Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. McCain

    \1\By proxy
    By a rollcall vote of 23 yeas and 0 nays as follows, the 
bill was ordered reported with amendments:
        YEAS--23                      NAYS--0
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Burns
Mr. Lott
Mrs. Hutchison\1\
Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Smith
Mr. Fitzgerald
Mr. Ensign
Mr. Allen
Mr. Sununu\1\
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Rockefeller\1\
Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Wyden
Mrs. Boxer
Mr. Nelson
Ms. Cantwell\1\
Mr. Lautenberg\1\
Mr. McCain

    \1\By proxy
                            Agency Comments

    This section of the report is optional. Agency comments 
generally would be received by the Committee in the context of 
a hearing and may be discussed in the legislative history. 
Formal agency comments may also come in the form of a letter 
from the agency head prior to or after mark-up. This section, 
nonetheless, may contain any relevant agency comments on a 
proposed bill or joint resolution submitted by a Government 
agency for the Committee's consideration. The comments should 
be printed only if they are particularly relevant to the 
consideration of a portion of the bill, or if significant 
comments were received after the hearing on the measure. This 
section may also be an appropriate place to include agency 
comments submitted in response to a request from the Committee 
during or after the hearing process.
    If the agency comment includes a lengthy attachment, it is 
sufficient to note that the attachment was received and is 
contained in the Committee files.
              Supplemental, Minority, or Additional Views

    Paragraph 10(c) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate provides that ``If at the time of approval of a measure 
or matter by any committee . . ., any member of the committee 
gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, or 
additional views, that member shall be entitled to not less 
than three calendar days in which to file such views. All such 
views so filed by one or more members of the committee shall be 
included within, and shall be made a part of, the report filed 
by the committee with respect to that measure or matter.''
    In recent practice, the Committee has not strictly enforced 
this rule with respect to its reports, and has included 
supplemental, minority, or additional views in its reports 
without regard to whether timely notice has been given and 
without regard to when the views were filed with the Committee.
    Supplemental, minority, or additional views may either 
support or disagree with the Committee position on a bill or 
joint resolution. Minority views may only be submitted by a 
Senator who voted against the amendment that is the subject of 
those views or against reporting the bill or resolution.
    Generally, supplemental, minority, or additional views are 
drafted by the staff of the Senator whose views are expressed 
and those views are not subject to editing by Committee staff. 
The Senator's staff should deliver a copy of the views directly 
to the Committee's Legislative Clerk, although the staff member 
may wish to provide a courtesy copy to the Committee staff 
members responsible for preparing the overall report. It is 
considered inappropriate, however, for the Committee staff to 
respond, in the report, to supplemental, minority, or 
additional views submitted by or on behalf of a Senator.
    [Note: Supplemental, minority, or additional views are 
printed only if they have been signed by the authoring 
Senator.]


                                 

                  Supplemental Views of Senator Nelson

    The Allowing Alaska IVORY Act would restate the authority 
of Alaska Natives to sell handicrafts made from legally 
acquired marine mammal parts under the MMPA and ESA. This bill 
would also amend the MMPA to allow exemptions for the sale of 
Alaska Native-carved handicrafts made of mastodon and mammoth 
ivory. Carving and selling mammoth and mastodon ivory is 
already legal for Alaska Natives and non-Natives since mammoths 
and mastodons are extinct, and hence not covered by the MMPA or 
ESA. Since the commerce in marine mammal, mammoth, and mastodon 
ivory is already legal, further legislating of existing 
authorities is unnecessary. If enacted, this bill would be the 
first time the MMPA--the United States' only marine mammal 
protective bill--covered non-marine mammal species. There are 
concerns from environmentalists that amending the MMPA in this 
way could weaken protections for marine mammals and create 
legal precedent for other non-marine mammal exemptions to be 
added in the future.
    There are also concerns from wildlife protection groups 
about the potential unintended consequences of this bill to the 
global and domestic efforts to curb the illegal trade of 
elephant ivory. While the international trade in elephant ivory 
has been banned since 1990, global demand for ivory remains. 
Smugglers attempt to sell elephant ivory by claiming it is 
legal mammoth ivory, both of which look nearly identical to the 
untrained eye. It is also difficult to differentiate walrus, 
mammoth, and mastodon ivory. Enforcement of illegal ivory trade 
remains challenging because there is currently no instant, 
easy, and inexpensive test to differentiate these ivories. 
[Footnote omitted.]
    Due to concerns for the illegal elephant ivory trade, some 
States have passed bans that prohibit some combination of 
walrus, mammoth, and mastodon ivory and marine mammal parts in 
intrastate commerce. The Allowing Alaska IVORY Act would 
preempt these State laws. However, all of the existing State 
laws (except for New York's [footnote omitted]) exempt 
federally authorized products from their ivory prohibitions, 
thus allowing for continued intrastate commerce in Alaska 
Native-carved walrus, mammoth, and mastodon ivory and marine 
mammal parts.

                                 

                    Minority Views of Senator Allen

    S. 1963 is unnecessary and counterproductive for an 
industry that has a proven track record of innovation, lower 
prices, and protecting consumer privacy. The six largest 
wireless carriers, representing more than three-quarters of all 
subscribers, \5\ have specifically committed to this Committee 
that they will safeguard the privacy of wireless phone numbers, 
either by creating a directory assistance database that 
includes only the numbers of subscribers who affirmatively 
choose to be listed through an opt-in method or by not 
participating in any wireless directory assistance program. 
Those carriers who are planning a database have further 
committed not to charge subscribers who elect to keep their 
wireless numbers unlisted or if they elect to remove their 
numbers from the database. In testimony before the Committee, 
the wireless industry also assured us that wireless numbers 
from the directory assistance database will not be published in 
a directory and that the aggregated database will not be sold 
to any third-party or be available anywhere on the Internet. 
Finally, child privacy will be protected because customers must 
be 18 years or older to sign a contract and choose whether to 
be listed in the database. In the face of these commitments, I 
see no need for the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Implementation of section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive 
Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Service, Ninth 
Report, FCC 04-216 paragraph 20 and table 4 (rel. Sept. 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislating in advance of any evidence of a problem is not 
only unnecessary in this case, it is also counterproductive. 
The wireless industry has thrived in the deregulatory 
environment established by Congress in 1993 and is now one of 
the country's most competitive businesses. More than 90 percent 
of Americans live in markets served by four or more wireless 
operators, and a nearly ubiquitous 98 percent of Americans live 
in a market served by three or more operators. Competition has 
driven wireless carriers to offer better service at lower 
prices. Carriers compete on the basis of service and feature 
options and calling plans, including lower prices, free 
voicemail, caller ID, and 3-way calling. Competitive forces in 
the wireless industry will discipline market participants more 
effectively than any regulator or regulation can.
    Imposing Government rules for a wireless service offering 
would represent a marked and unjustified departure from the 
successful bipartisan policy of deregulation. Faced with 
unnecessary Government regulation, carriers may decide not to 
offer a directory assistance database at all, leaving small 
businesses and others who rely substantially or even 
exclusively on their wireless phones no other choice but to pay 
to have their number listed in a landline directory--if they 
have that option at all, which many do not. The bill may even 
deter future innovations and industry initiatives for fear 
Government mandates will be added even before the first 
customer signs up.
    Representative of the problems with this bill is the 
requirement that all telecommunications carriers, wireline as 
well as wireless, ``mask'' wireless telephone number 
information in the bills they send to their customers. While 
seemingly innocuous, compliance with this mandate would be 
costly and onerous. Carriers would essentially have to create a 
separate database of customers who elected not to have their 
number included in the directory assistance database, and every 
wireline and wireless carrier would have to check bills against 
that database to remove any numbers of customers who had not 
opted into the directory. No carrier currently has the 
technology to create the required database, query it, and 
reflect the results on bills. Requiring the creation of a 
separate database as a condition of providing directory 
assistance creates a very real risk that the entire directory 
assistance project will be deferred or even abandoned, to the 
detriment of consumers who desire such a resource.
    Let me be clear that consumer privacy must be effectively 
protected, in the context of wireless services and otherwise. 
If wireless carriers do not act in conformance with the 
commitments they have made to us, I would not hesitate to 
support remedial legislation. In this case, however, passing a 
law when there is no evidence of harm and every indication that 
statutory intervention is unneeded not only puts the cart 
before the horse, it will discourage the private sector from 
even trying to develop non-regulatory solutions to such matters 
as privacy protection. For these reasons, I oppose S. 1963.

                                 

        Additional Views of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings

    During the Committee's consideration of S. 2645, it was the 
Committee's intent to adopt an amendment offered by Senators 
McCain and Hollings to increase the authorization amounts and 
make other changes to the underlying bill. Due to the 
invocation of a Senate rule, the consideration of amendments to 
this bill was prevented. It is our expectation and hope, 
however, that this amendment will be agreed to and accepted as 
this legislation receives further consideration before the full 
Senate.
    The amendment would authorize the CPB's annual funding 
account at the following levels:

   $428 million for FY 2007;
   $458 million for FY 2008;
   $490 million for FY 2009;
   $524 million for FY 2010; and
   $560 million for FY 2011.

    The amendment would authorize the Department of Commerce's 
PTFP program at the following levels:

   $50,000,000 for FY 2005;
   $53,500,000 for FY 2006;
   $57,240,000 for FY 2007;
   $61,240,000 for FY 2008;
   $64,200,000 for FY 2009;
   $68,480,000 for FY 2010; and
   $73,270,000 for FY 2011.

    The amendment would also add an additional section to the 
bill relating to representatives, organizations, affinity 
groups, and rural communities.
    Under current law, a nine-person Board of Directors governs 
CPB, sets policy, and establishes programming priorities. Only 
five members of the board at any time may be from one political 
party. The President appoints each member, who, after 
confirmation by the Senate, serves a 6-year term. By statute, 
Board members must be United States citizens who are ``eminent 
in such fields as education, cultural and civic affairs, or the 
arts, including radio and television''. (47 U.S.C. 396(c)(2)) 
Additionally, at least two members of the Board must be persons 
representing public broadcasting licensees.
    The additional section would amend the law to clarify that 
at least one of the nine-member CPB Board should be selected 
from among individuals who represent the licensees and 
permittees of public television stations, and that at least one 
additional CPB Board member should be selected from among 
individuals who represent the licensees and permittees of 
public radio stations. Although the President has full 
discretion in selecting his nominees to the CPB Board, the 
President is urged to give consideration to the suggestions 
made by the licensees and permittees. Additionally, the 
Committee encourages the President to select board members who 
represent the diverse geography of licensees and permittees--
rural, urban, non-contiguous States, territories, and Native 
American reservations.
    In addition, to ensure that CPB's funding priorities are 
responsive to the needs of local stations and the communities 
they serve, this section would amend various portions of the 
law to require consultation with public radio and television 
licensees and representatives designated by their national 
organizations when allocating money from CPB's national 
programming fund, its digital fund, the fund for Community 
Service Grants, and the Interconnection Fund. Organizations 
like APTS, PBS, and NPR are member service organizations that 
represent the vast majority of local stations. They have 
elected boards that are representative of the diversity of 
types of local stations and can play a constructive role in 
assisting CPB with developing policies and procedures that will 
enhance localism and service to communities.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that whenever a committee reports a bill or 
joint resolution repealing or amending any statute, the reports 
shall include ``(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 
which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print 
of that part of the bill or joint resolution proposed to be 
amended, showing by stricken-through type and italics, parallel 
columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the 
omissions and insertions which would be made by the bill or 
joint resolution.'' This rule is commonly referred to in the 
Senate as the ``Cordon Rule''. A similar rule in the House of 
Representatives is commonly known as the ``Ramseyer Rule''.
    As with the statement of estimated costs and the regulatory 
impact statement, this part of the report may be waived by the 
committee where ``in the opinion of the committee, it is 
necessary to dispense with the requirements . . . to expedite 
the business of the Senate''.
    It is important to distinguish between a provision 
contained in a bill or joint resolution that repeals or amends 
an existing provision of law--which should be shown in this 
part of the report--and a provision contained in a bill or 
joint resolution that, if enacted, would become law without 
changing the text of any existing statute. The latter, often 
referred to as a ``stand-alone provision'' is not shown in this 
part, notwithstanding the fact that its enactment would create 
a new provision of Federal law, because it does not alter or 
repeal the text of an existing statute.
    If the bill or joint resolution, as ordered reported, does 
not alter or repeal the text of an existing statute, then the 
report should state that the bill or joint resolution makes no 
change in existing law.
    This section of the report is prepared by the Committee's 
Legislative Clerk, based on the reported bill draft or joint 
resolution as ordered reported. A final review by the Senate 
Office of the Legislative Counsel (SLC) of the composed Changes 
in Existing Law (CIEL) section is highly advised.
    The waiver language is as follows:

        In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states 
        that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with 
        the requirements of that paragraph in order to expedite 
        the business of the Senate.

    The no change language is as follows:

        In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that 
        the bill as reported would make no change to existing 
        law.


                                 

               [Modification of existing statutory text]

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle VII--Aviation Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART B--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 471--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Subchapter I--Airport Improvement

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 47107. Project grant application approval conditioned on 
                    assurances about airport operations

    (a) * * *
    (w) Mothers' Rooms.--
            (1) In general.--[In fiscal year 2021 and each 
        fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of 
        Transportation] The Secretary of Transportation may 
        approve an application under this subchapter for an 
        airport development project grant only if the Secretary 
        receives written assurances that the airport owner or 
        operator will maintain--
                    (A) a lactation area in the sterile area of 
                each passenger terminal building of the 
                airport; and
                    (B) a baby changing table in [one men's and 
                one women's] at least one men's and at least 
                one women's restroom in each passenger terminal 
                building of the airport.
            (2) Applicability.--
                    [(A) Airport size.--The requirement in 
                paragraph (1) shall only apply to applications 
                submitted by the airport sponsor of a medium or 
                large hub airport.]
                    (A) Airport size.--
                            (i) In general.--The requirements 
                        in paragraph (1) shall only apply to 
                        applications submitted by the airport 
                        sponsor of--
                                    (I) a medium or large hub 
                                airport in fiscal year 2021 and 
                                each fiscal year thereafter; 
                                and
                                    (II) an applicable small 
                                hub airport in fiscal year 2023 
                                and each fiscal year 
                                thereafter.
                            (ii) Applicable small hub airport 
                        defined.--In clause (i)(II), the term 
                        ``applicable small hub airport'' means 
                        an airport designated as a small hub 
                        airport during--
                                    (I) the 3-year period 
                                consisting of 2020, 2021, and 
                                2022; or
                                    (II) any consecutive 3-year 
                                period beginning after 2020.
                    (B) Preexisting facilities.--On application 
                by an airport sponsor, the Secretary may 
                determine that a lactation area in existence on 
                [the date of enactment of this Act complies 
                with the requirement in paragraph (1)] October 
                5, 2018, complies with the requirement in 
                paragraph (1)(A), notwithstanding the absence 
                of one of the facilities or characteristics 
                referred to in the definition of the term 
                ``lactation area'' in this subsection.
                    (C) Special rule.--The requirement in 
                [paragraph (1)] paragraph (1)(A) shall not 
                apply with respect to a project grant 
                application for a period of time, determined by 
                the Secretary, if the Secretary determines that 
                construction or maintenance activities make it 
                impracticable or unsafe for the lactation area 
                to be located in the sterile area of the 
                building.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                 

                       [Addition of new section]

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 46--SHIPPING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle V--Merchant Marine

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART C--FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 537--LOANS AND GUARANTEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Subchapter I--General

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 53718. * * *

Sec. 53719. Best practices

    The Secretary or Administrator shall ensure that all 
standard documents and agreements that relate to loan 
guarantees made pursuant to this chapter are reviewed and 
updated every four years to ensure that such documents and 
agreements meet the current commercial best practices to the 
extent permitted by law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                 

                          [Repeal of section]

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           [42 U.S.C. 18388]

[SEC. 809. SPACE WEATHER.

  [(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
          [(1) Space weather events pose a significant threat 
        to modern technological systems.
          [(2) The effects of severe space weather events on 
        the electric power grid, telecommunications and 
        entertainment satellites, airline communications during 
        polar routes, and space-based position, navigation and 
        timing systems could have significant societal, 
        economic, national security, and health impacts.
          [(3) Earth and Space Observing satellites, such as 
        the Advanced Composition Explorer, Geostationary 
        Operational Environmental Satellites, Polar Operational 
        Environmental Satellites, and Defense Meteorological 
        Satellites, provide crucial data necessary to predict 
        space weather events.
  [(b) Action Required.--The Director of OSTP shall--
          [(1) improve the Nation's ability to prepare, avoid, 
        mitigate, respond to, and recover from potentially 
        devastating impacts of space weather events;
          [(2) coordinate the operational activities of the 
        National Space Weather Program Council members, 
        including the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center and 
        the U.S. Air Force Weather Agency; and
          [(3) submit a report to the appropriate committees of 
        Congress within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act that--
                  [(A) details the current data sources, both 
                space- and ground-based, that are necessary for 
                space weather forecasting; and
                  [(B) details the space- and ground-based 
                systems that will be required to gather data 
                necessary for space weather forecasting for the 
                next 10 years.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    Very Short or Very Long Measures

    If a bill is very short or very long, it is appropriate to 
modify the report format as necessary.
    For very short bills, sections may be combined or omitted 
if this would prevent needless repetition of material that has 
already been presented. There is nothing wrong with a one-page 
report if one is dealing with a routine, one-paragraph bill 
establishing National Salt Water Taffy Week. The summary of 
major provisions section is frequently omitted in shorter bills 
that do not really have major and minor provisions. A report 
does not need separate sections for background and needs, a 
summary of major provisions, and a section-by-section analysis 
if it is to accompany a one section bill that merely 
reauthorizes appropriations for the Federal Widget Commission.
    For particularly long, complex, or controversial bills 
(such as transportation deregulation, telecommunications 
reform, or broadcast obscenity rules), it is appropriate to 
expand the report to deal with, e.g., different industry 
segments or constitutional issues raised by the measure.
    A long report is not very helpful if the reader is unable 
to find needed information quickly and easily. The general 
proposition that information should be presented as concisely 
and clearly as possible applies with special emphasis in a 
longer report.
    Special care should be taken to limit the discussion to 
essential material and to rework that discussion until it is as 
clear and concise as possible. Short paragraphs, the frequent 
use of headings and subheadings, bullet points, and even a 
table of contents will aid the reader in finding needed 
information quickly.
    To the extent possible, ensure that the discussion of each 
major issue occurs in one easily located place in the report, 
rather than being fragmented and scattered throughout the 
report. If a point needs to be re-emphasized, a cross-reference 
to the appropriate portion of the earlier discussion is 
generally preferable to restating the matter. Bear in mind that 
the purpose of the report is to present, in a clear and usable 
fashion, material that is essential to understanding the 
legislative measure.
    For long, controversial, and complex legislation, one may 
need to add sections to the report in addition to the sections 
discussed previously in this guide in order to keep it well 
organized and present the essential material. For example, if a 
bill was the subject of prolonged and unusual consideration 
before the Committee, this activity may be described in a 
concise fashion under the heading ``Committee Consideration''. 
Similarly, if the bill was significantly altered by numerous 
amendments in the mark-up, the most significant amendments 
might be explained under the heading ``Committee Amendments''. 
Other, less significant, amendments may be dispensed with by 
including a notation that the Committee also adopted several 
minor, technical, or conforming amendments.
    If a bill is unusually important or significant, the 
section on ``Background and Needs'' may be expanded to include 
a longer, well-organized discussion of the need for the 
legislation. Finally, if a bill is particularly controversial, 
the report may contain a section entitled ``Major Issues'' 
which briefly discusses the most important issues in the 
measure.
    When you begin to enlarge sections or add new sections to a 
report, it may be necessary to rearrange the order of the 
sections. This is permissible if the final report is easy to 
read and organized in a logical fashion. You should be certain, 
however, that the reader is given a proper introduction at the 
beginning of the report. This means there should be a simple, 
brief, and clear statement of the major thrust of the 
legislation, the need for the legislation, and the major 
provisions of the legislation before the reader reaches any 
long or detailed discussions.


                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of S. 886, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) Corps Confirmation Correction 
Legislation, is to ratify the otherwise legal appointments and 
promotions in the commissioned corps of NOAA that failed to be 
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent as required 
by law.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

    [Refer to examples provided on page 4.]

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    [Refer to the example provided on page 13.]

                            ESTIMATED COSTS

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office: [CBO score omitted in this example].

                      REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

    Because S. 886 does not create any new programs, the 
legislation would have no additional regulatory impact, and 
will result in no additional reporting requirements. The 
legislation would have no further effect on the number or types 
of individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of 
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals, 
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses.

                    SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This example could be further shortened by omitting the 
Section-by-Section Analysis, as it essentially repeats the statement of 
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. Ratification of certain NOAA appointments, promotions, and 
        actions.

    This section would ratify otherwise legal appointments and 
promotions in the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration that failed to be submitted to 
the Senate for its advice and consent as required by law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.


                     Controversial Measure Example

                          Background and Needs

    Since the inception of the Commission, Congress has been 
concerned with indecent and obscene material broadcast over the 
airwaves. Both the Radio Act of 1927 and The Communications Act 
of 1934 (the Act) vested the agency with the authority to 
regulate obscene, indecent, and profane material. In 1948, 
Congress codified section 1464 in the criminal code, which 
states, ``Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane 
language by means of radio communication shall be fined under 
this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.''
    The FCC is charged with enforcing section 1464 and has 
promulgated rules prohibiting radio and television stations 
from broadcasting indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. 
For those who violate the rules, the FCC may issue warnings, 
impose monetary fines (up to $27,500 for each violation or up 
to $275,000 for a continuing violation for broadcast station 
licensees and $11,000 for non-licensees who have received a 
prior warning, i.e. performers), or revoke licenses for the 
airing of indecent material.
    The increase in the number of indecency complaints filed at 
the Commission demonstrates the public's concern over the 
recent surge in indecent content on radio and television. The 
number of complaints increased from 111 in 2000 to 2,240,350 in 
2003. The number of complaints filed in 2004 is on pace to 
exceed the number filed in 2003.
    A study conducted by the Parents Television Council (PTC), 
and published in its report titled, ``The Blue Tube: Foul 
Language on Prime Time Network TV,'' concluded that ``foul 
language during the Family Hour [8 p.m. to 9 p.m.] increased by 
94.8 percent between 1998 and 2002.'' The pervasiveness of 
indecent material has fueled competition among broadcasters to 
push the envelope for more and more questionable content. As 
described in the PTC report: ``Once the initial taboo is broken 
and the shock value wears off, more and more curse words fall 
into the category of `acceptable' language, and TV must try to 
up the ante by introducing new words to prime time TV's obscene 
lexicon.''
    Due to the increase in complaints, the Commission has 
indicated recently a willingness to toughen its enforcement 
against the broadcasting of indecent and obscene material. 
However, besides a paltry 10 percent increase for inflation, 
these statutory limits on fines have not been increased since 
1991. As a result, the current statutory limits on fines, even 
if they are enforced more rigorously, appear to be a mere cost 
of doing business rather than a deterrent to broadcasting 
obscene, indecent, or profane material. S. 2056 was introduced 
to enhance the FCC's enforcement capability by increasing these 
fines.
    While the FCC has rules, although deficient, governing the 
broadcasting of indecent programming, it has not adopted 
similar regulations to protect children from exposure to 
violent programming on television. The Telecommunications Act 
of 1996 (1996 Act) included a provision requiring all 
television sets manufactured after January 1, 2000, to contain 
a ``V-chip,'' a feature that provides parents with the ability 
to block the display of certain programming based on a 
program's rating. An April 2000 survey conducted by the Kaiser 
Family Foundation, found that only 9 percent of parents of 
children ages 2-17 had a television with a V-chip, only 3 
percent of all parents had ever used the V-chip to block 
programming, and 39 percent of parents surveyed had never heard 
of the V-chip.
    The American Psychological Association (APA) reports that 
by the time a child who watches 2 to 4 hours of television 
daily leaves elementary school, he or she will witness at least 
8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of 
violence on television. Psychological research has also shown 
that children who watch violence on television may become less 
sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, may be more 
fearful of the world around them, and may be more likely to 
behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.

            I. Indecent Programming on Radio and Television


                        A. INDECENCY REGULATION

    The FCC defines ``indecent speech'' as ``language or 
material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms 
patently offensive as measured by contemporary community 
standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory 
activities or organs.'' In applying the ``community standards'' 
criterion, the FCC has stated, ``the determination as to 
whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a 
local one and does not encompass any particular geographic 
area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast 
viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual 
complainant.'' \7\ Additionally, to be found indecent the 
material must be broadcast at a time of day when children are 
likely to be in the audience--between the hours of 6 a.m. and 
10 p.m.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 
U.S.C. 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 
Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 7999 (2001).
    \8\ Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654, (D.C. 
Cir. 1995), herein after ACT IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Supreme Court decision establishing the judicial 
foundation for the FCC's indecency enforcement authority, is 
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). In Pacifica, 
the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling finding indecent, but 
not obscene, a twelve-minute routine by comedian George Carlin. 
Upholding the FCC's actions, the Supreme Court emphasized the 
fact that the broadcast media pervades society and that once 
unexpected program content is heard, the damage is done: ``To 
say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio 
when he hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy 
for an assault is to run away after the first blow.'' 
Additionally, the Court noted that ``broadcasting is uniquely 
accessible to children, even those too young to read,'' and 
that the Government's interest in the well-being of its youth 
and in supporting parental control in the household justified 
regulation. As a result, the Court found that under these 
circumstances, the FCC could sanction those who broadcast 
indecent--even if not obscene--language.

                    B. COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT ACTION

    Some critics argue that the current process is largely 
ineffective and puts too many burdens on complainants. In 
particular, these critics note that in 2003 the FCC received 
about 240,000 complaints concerning approximately 375 radio and 
television programs, and issued a total of 3 fines. The 
indecency complaint process also has been criticized for 
allowing complaints to languish, which has in some cases 
resulted in the FCC being forced to dismiss a complaint because 
the statute of limitations has run. Since 2000, the number of 
indecency complaints has risen to a record high.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of--
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                                     Programs    Complaints
        Year           Complaints   reflected    denied or    Complaints
                        received     in such     dismissed    pending at
                                    complaints  by year-end    year-end
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004................      530,885           23  ...........  ...........
2003................    2,240,350          318          368      239,982
2002................       13,922          345       13,258          664
2001................          346          152          242          104
2000................          111          101           37           72
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until 2003, the highest indecency fine the FCC had imposed 
was $35,000 to WQAM (Miami, FL) for a 5-day indecent broadcast. 
In 1995, the FCC issued Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) of 
$400,000, $500,000, and $600,000 against Infinity Broadcasting 
Corporation, (Infinity, a unit of Viacom, Inc.) involving ``The 
Howard Stern Show,'' but the forfeitures were never actually 
recorded because the company entered into a settlement 
agreement instead for more than $1.7 million.
    Recently, the Commission has imposed the statutory maximum 
fine of $27,500 in numerous instances.

   In April 2003, the FCC proposed the statutory 
        maximum fine of $27,500 against Infinity for the 
        broadcast of explicit and graphic sexual references, 
        including references to anal and oral sex, as well as 
        explicit and graphic references to sexual practices 
        that involve excretory activities. In addition, the FCC 
        stated that given the egregiousness of this violation, 
        additional serious violations by Infinity might lead to 
        the initiation of a license revocation proceeding. 
        While Infinity challenged the proposed fine, the FCC 
        rejected this challenge and issued a forfeiture order 
        on December 8, 2003.
   In October 2003, Infinity was fined $357,500 for 
        airing a description of a couple allegedly having sex 
        in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. The 
        broadcast was part of a contest among five couples who 
        were challenged by station personnel to have sex in 
        several places specified by the station, including St. 
        Patrick's Cathedral. The FCC said the forfeiture was 
        the largest amount permitted by the Act based on the 
        legal facts of the case, and therefore fined the 13 
        Infinity stations that aired the program $27,500 each.
   In October 2003, the FCC issued a $55,000 forfeiture 
        against AM/FM Radio Licensees, which is controlled by 
        Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (Clear Channel), for 
        airing a program in which the hosts questioned two high 
        school girls about the sex lives of students and school 
        administrators.
   In January 2004, the FCC issued its largest 
        forfeiture ever for $755,000 against Clear Channel for 
        airing indecent material in connection with the ``Bubba 
        the Love Sponge'' program. The forfeiture assessed the 
        statutory maximum of $27,500 to each of the 26 Clear 
        Channel stations that aired the indecent material, and 
        the base amount of $10,000 each for four public file 
        violations ($40,000).
   During the 2004 Super Bowl, Janet Jackson's breast 
        was exposed during her halftime duet with Justin 
        Timberlake. Viacom's CBS television network, which 
        aired the show, and Viacom's MTV, which produced the 
        halftime show, apologized for what they describe as an 
        ``unscripted moment.'' CBS estimates that some 140 
        million Americans tuned into the game, which would make 
        it the most-watched Super Bowl in history. FCC Chairman 
        Michael C. Powell issued a statement the following 
        morning, calling the incident a ``classless, crass and 
        deplorable stunt'' and instructed the Commission to 
        open an immediate investigation on its own motion. The 
        FCC has received more than 500,000 complaints about the 
        Super Bowl halftime show. Chairman Powell's probe could 
        result in fines against CBS's 20 owned and operated 
        stations and the more than 200 affiliate stations that 
        aired the broadcast. If the Commission levies the 
        maximum $27,500 fine, CBS affiliates would have to pay 
        $5.5 million, about the cost of two Super Bowl ads, 
        while CBS, through its owned stations, would be fined 
        approximately $550,000.

    Even with the FCC's recent actions on indecency, many 
critics have suggested that the fines are merely the ``cost of 
doing business'' for these large companies. Commissioner 
Michael J. Copps has declared in a recent statement:

         . . . a mere $27,500 fine for each incident . . . such 
        a fine will be easily absorbed as a ``cost of doing 
        business'' and fails to send a message that the 
        Commission is serious about enforcing the Nation's 
        indecency laws. ``Cost of doing business'' fines are 
        never going to stop the media's slide to the bottom.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Clear Channel 
Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael 
J. Copps, Dissenting, 19 FCC Rcd 1768, (rel. Jan. 27, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following chart compares the Commission's current fines 
to the various companies' revenues.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2002                                2003
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
              Station owner                Amount of fines                     Amount of fines
                                             (number of      Company revenue     (number of      Company revenue
                                               fines)                              fines)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel...........................                $0    $8,093,000,000        $1,057,500    $8,042,000,000
Infinity................................            21,000    24,600,000,000           412,500    26,600,000,000
Entercom................................            14,000       391,300,000                 0       401,100,000
Emmis...................................            28,000       533,800,000                 0               N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the FCC has moved to assess the maximum fine in 
certain cases, the Commission has not utilized its authority to 
issue fines for violations on a per utterance basis, to 
initiate license revocations, or to further develop a 
consistent and aggressive approach to combating indecency. In 
October, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau determined that rock star 
Bono's use of the ``F'' word on a live national broadcast was 
not indecent because it did not appeal to the ``prurient 
interest'' since the term was used as an adjective. Shortly 
thereafter, the House of Representatives and Senate both passed 
forth resolutions expressing a sense that there is no support 
for, ``the lowering of standards or weakening of rules by the 
FCC prohibiting obscene and indecent broadcasts to allow 
network or other communications to use language that is 
indecent or vulgar'' and requested that the FCC Commissioners 
reverse the Enforcement Bureau's decision.\10\ On March, 3, 
2004, the FCC reversed the Enforcement Bureau's decision 
stating that any use of the ``F'' word violates the FCC's 
indecency rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See H. Res. 482 and H. Res. 500, and S. Res. 283 (2003).
    \11\ Complaints of various broadcast licensee r.e. airing of 
``Golden Globe Awards'' Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 04-
43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              C. POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP TO MEDIA OWNERSHIP

    The number of indecency complaints has risen during a 
period when the number of owners of media outlets has 
decreased. As a result, the Committee has become concerned that 
there may be a possible connection between the increased 
consolidation of owners in the media industry and the increased 
number of complaints on indecent programming. For example, 
Clear Channel, which was assessed the largest fine ever issued 
by the FCC, went from owning 512 stations in 1999 to over 1,200 
stations in 2004. Other radio station group owners also have 
increased their ownership holdings over the same period. 
Infinity went from owning 163 stations in 1999 to owning 180 in 
2004; Citadel went from 108 stations in 1999 to 213 stations in 
2004; Cummlus Media, Inc. went from owning 232 in 1999 to 301 
in 2004; and Entercom Communications Corporation went from 
owning 42 in 1999 to 104 in 2004.
    Consumers Union and PTC have testified before the Committee 
on the relationship between increased media consolidation and a 
coarsening of content on the airwaves. Gene Kimmelman of 
Consumers Union wrote to the Committee in a letter dated March 
8, 2004, ``Realistic media ownership rules must be in place to 
lessen the influence of massive corporations on local broadcast 
content, as well as to ensure public debate in the local media, 
including newspapers.'' \12\ At a July 23, 2003, hearing, Brent 
Bozell of PTC testified, ``There are many reasons not to give 
these six mega-corporations even more control of our airwaves, 
one of them being their utter lack of attentiveness to 
community standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\  See www.consumerunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/
000901.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 II. Violent Programming on Television


                A. IMPACT OF MEDIA VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

    The impact of media violence on children has been studied 
since motion pictures were created during the 1920s. The 
primary concern at that time was whether certain scenes 
containing sexual or violent content undermined moral 
standards. A few years later, a study suggested that there was 
a link between delinquency-prone youngsters and motion 
pictures. Although members of the broadcast industry and 
specialists in human deviant behavior criticized these 
conclusions, it elevated the issue to one of public importance.
    As television grew in the 1950s, it became the primary 
focus of media violence researchers. Between the late 1950s and 
early 1960s, several studies suggested a strong link between 
television violence and youth aggression. In 1969, the Surgeon 
General was petitioned by Senator John Pastore, the Chairman of 
the Senate Committee on Commerce, to conduct a study on 
television and social behavior. The study, published in 1972, 
found that: (1) television content is heavily saturated with 
violence; (2) children and adults are watching more television; 
and (3) there is some evidence that, on balance, viewing 
violent television entertainment increases the likelihood of 
aggressive behavior.
    The Surgeon General's report heightened concern over the 
issue and led to more studies, including a study released in 
1975 by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). The 
study suggested that television violence was having a deforming 
effect on children, resulting in abnormal child development, 
and increasing levels of physical aggressiveness. In response, 
the America Medical Association (AMA) passed a resolution 
declaring that television violence threatened the welfare of 
young Americans.
    Since the release of the Surgeon General's report and the 
JAMA study, a number of major medical and public health 
organizations have studied and affirmed the link between 
violent programming and violent behavior in children. In 1982, 
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) produced a 
report entitled ``Television and Behavior: Ten Years of 
Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties,'' 
concluding that TV violence affects all children, not just 
those predisposed to aggression. Specifically, the report 
reaffirmed the conclusions of earlier studies:

        After 10 more years of research, the consensus among 
        most of the research community is that violence on 
        television does lead to aggressive behavior by children 
        and teenagers who watch the programs. This conclusion 
        is based on laboratory experiments and on field 
        studies. Not all children become aggressive, of course, 
        but the correlations between violence and aggression 
        are positive. In magnitude, television violence is as 
        strongly correlated with aggressive behavior as any 
        other behavioral variable that has been measured. The 
        research question has moved from asking whether or not 
        there is an effect to seeking explanations for the 
        effect.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ National Institute of Mental Health, Television and Behavior: 
Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties 
(David Pearl et al. eds., 1982) p.6.

    In 1992, Dr. Brandon Centerwall, a Professor of 
Epidemiology at the University of Washington, conducted a study 
on the homicide rates in South Africa, Canada, and the United 
States in relation to the introduction of television. In all 
three countries, Dr. Centerwall found that the homicide rate 
doubled about 10 or 15 years after the introduction of 
television. According to Dr. Centerwall, the lag time in each 
country reflects the fact that television exerts its behavior-
modifying effects primarily on children, whereas violent 
activity is primarily an adult activity. Dr. Centerwall 
concludes that ``long-term childhood exposure to television is 
a causal factor behind approximately one-half of the homicides 
committed in the United States.'' This report found that 
extensive exposure to television violence could lead to chronic 
effects extending into later adolescence and adulthood.
    In June 2000, representatives from six of the Nation's top 
public health organizations, including the Academy of 
Pediatrics, the APA, and the AMA, issued a joint statement 
noting that:

        Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the 
        Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of 
        Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by 
        leading figures within our medical and public health 
        organizations--our own members--point overwhelmingly to 
        a causal connection between media violence and 
        aggressive behavior in some children. The conclusion of 
        the public health community, based on over 30 years of 
        research, is that viewing entertainment violence can 
        lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and 
        behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are 
        measurable and long lasting. Moreover, prolonged 
        viewing of media violence can lead to emotional 
        desensitization toward violence in real life.

    This conclusion has been further supported by subsequent 
research. In March 2003, Dr. Rowell Huesmann and Dr. Leonard 
Eron reviewed the long-term relationship between viewing media 
violence in childhood and young-adult aggressive behavior. The 
doctors found that ``both males and females from all social 
strata and all levels of initial aggressiveness are placed at 
increased risk for the development of adult aggressive and 
violent behavior when they viewed a high and steady diet of 
violent television shows in early childhood.'' \14\  This 
longitudinal study was started in the 1960s and followed a 
group of 875 children in upstate New York, examining them at 
ages 8, 19, and 30.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See L/ Rowell Huesmann et al., Longitudinal Relations Between 
Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent 
Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992, Development Psychology, 39 
(2003): 201-221.
    \15\ See L. Rowell Huesmann et al., Stability of Aggression Over 
Time and Generations, Developmental Psychology 20 (1984): 1,120-1,134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, in March 2003, the Committee heard testimony from 
Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and 
Children's Health at the Children's Hospital of Boston, 
concerning neurobiological research and the impact of media 
violence on children. At that hearing, Dr. Rich testified that 
the correlation between violent media and aggressive behavior:

         . . . is stronger than that of calcium intake and bone 
        mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, condom non-use and 
        sexually acquired HIV, and environmental tobacco smoke 
        and lung cancer, all associations that clinicians 
        accept as fact, and on which preventive medicine is 
        based without question.

    Given this evidence about the correlation between exposure 
to violent programming and violent behavior, many organizations 
have become increasingly alarmed by the increased prevalence of 
violent programming on broadcast, cable, and satellite 
television. As noted earlier, the APA estimates that a typical 
child will watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence 
before finishing elementary school. Similarly, in 1998, a $3.5 
million study, commissioned by the National Cable Television 
Association (NCTA) and conducted by a panel of leading 
educators and social scientists (The National Television 
Violence Report) indicated that from 1994 to 1997 the level of 
television violence was relatively constant, with about 60 
percent of programming containing violent content, averaging 
about 6 violent acts per hour. During prime time viewing hours, 
however, the study found that the number of programs with 
violence increased by 14 percent on the Big Four networks, by 7 
percent on independent broadcast stations, and by 10 percent on 
basic cable channels.
    Moreover, the manner in which violence is portrayed on 
television may be a cause for concern. For example, the NCTA 
study reported that:

        Much of TV violence is still glamorized . . . Most 
        violence on television continues to be sanitized . . . 
        Less than 20 percent of violent programs portray the 
        long-term damage of violence to the victim's family, 
        friends, and community . . . Much of the serious 
        physical aggression on television is still trivialized 
        . . . Very few programs emphasize an anti-violence 
        theme.

    In 2003, the PTC conducted a study on television violence 
that was published in a report entitled, ``TV Bloodbath: 
Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV'', which surveyed 
programming shown during the 1998, 2000, and 2002 November 
sweeps. The report found that the prevalence of violent 
programming increased in every time slot between 1998 and 2002, 
and that in 2002 depictions of violence were 41 percent more 
frequent during the 8 p.m. hour and 134.4 percent more frequent 
during the 9 p.m. hour than in 1998.

                     B. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

    Congress has expressed concern about the amount of violence 
on television since the 1950s. Studies conducted in the 1950s 
showed that violent crime increased significantly early in that 
decade, and some researchers believed that the spread of 
television was partly to blame. In response, Congress held 
hearings concerning violence in radio and television and its 
impact on children in 1952 and 1954. In 1956, one of the first 
studies of television violence reported that 4-year-olds who 
watched the ``Woody Woodpecker'' cartoon were more likely to 
display aggressive behavior than children who watched the 
``Little Red Hen.'' After the broadcast industry pledged to 
regulate itself and after the FCC testified against regulatory 
action, Congress chose not to act.
    In the early 1960s, as a follow up to the earlier Senate 
hearings, President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert 
Kennedy placed significant pressure on the television networks 
to reduce violent content in their programming. However, the 
pressure yielded few results. The urban riots of the 1960s 
again raised concern about the link between television violence 
and violent behavior. In response to public concern, President 
Lyndon B. Johnson established the National Commission on the 
Causes and Prevention of Violence. The Commission's Mass Media 
Task Force looked at the impact of violence on television and 
concluded that television violence (1) has a negative impact on 
behavior; (2) encourages subsequent violent behavior; and (3) 
``fosters moral and social values about violence in daily life 
which are unacceptable in a civilized society.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of 
Violence, Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes and 
Prevention of Violence, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, December 1969, p. 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1969, Senator John Pastore petitioned the Surgeon 
General to investigate the effects of TV violence. In 1972, 
Surgeon General Jessie Steinfeld released a study demonstrating 
a correlation between television violence and violent and 
aggressive behavior and called for congressional action.\17\ 
The 5 volume report concluded that there is a causal 
relationship between TV violence and aggressive behavior, but 
primarily on children presupposed to aggressive behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ See U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, The 
Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and 
Social Behavior, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised 
Violence. Report to the Surgeon General, Washington, D.C., United 
States Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several more hearings were held after the release of the 
Surgeon General's report in the 1970s. In 1975, a report by the 
JAMA suggested that television violence was having a deforming 
effect on children, resulting in abnormal child development, 
and increasing levels of physical aggressiveness. In response, 
the AMA passed a resolution declaring television violence to be 
a threat to the welfare of young Americans. Despite the 
findings, little regulatory or congressional action was taken. 
However, continued concerns prompted Congress to request the 
FCC to study possible solutions.
    On February 20, 1975, the FCC issued its ``Report on the 
Broadcast of Violent and Obscene Material.'' The report 
recommended statutory clarification regarding the Commission's 
authority to prohibit certain broadcasts of obscene and 
indecent materials. However, with regard to the issue of 
television violence, the FCC did not recommend any 
congressional action because the industry had recently adopted 
a voluntary family viewing policy as part of a industry code of 
conduct. The policy provided that ``entertainment programming 
inappropriate for viewing by a general family audience should 
not be broadcast during the first hour of network entertainment 
programming in prime time and in the immediately preceding 
hour.'' In 1982, the Department of Justice challenged the code 
on antitrust grounds wholly unrelated to the family viewing 
policy. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 
ultimately eliminated the code and with it went the family 
viewing policy.
    During the 101st Congress, Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) 
introduced the Television Program Improvement Act. That 
legislation granted an antitrust exemption to permit television 
industry representatives to meet, consider, and jointly agree 
upon implementing voluntary standards that would lead to a 
reduction in television violence. Subsequent to the bill's 
enactment, industry discussions led to the release in December 
1992 of joint standards regarding the broadcasting of excessive 
television violence. In June 1993, the networks adopted a 
policy to warn viewers about programs that might contain 
excessive violence. That policy required the following 
statement to be transmitted before and during the broadcasting 
of violent programs: ``Due to some violent content, parental 
discretion is advised.''
    Despite these efforts by the industry, many in Congress 
believed the voluntary standards did not adequately address the 
concerns over television violence. In October 1993, the 
Committee held a hearing on television violence to consider a 
variety of legislative proposals. Attorney General Janet Reno 
testified that all the legislation pending before the Committee 
at that time, including S. 1383 (103rd Congress), the 
Children's Protection From Violent Programming Act of 1993 
(Hollings-Inouye), would be constitutional. The major broadcast 
networks and other industry representatives argued that the 
amount of violent programming had declined and requested more 
time to implement proposed warning labels before Congress 
considered legislation. No further action was taken in the 
103rd Congress.
    On July 11, 1995, the Committee held a hearing on 
television violence to consider pending measures, including S. 
470 (104th Congress), introduced by Senator Hollings and known 
as the ``safe harbor legislation''. S. 470 was identical to S. 
1383. The Committee subsequently reported S. 470 without 
amendment on August 10, 1995 by a recorded vote of 16-to-1, 
with two Senators not voting. Similar legislation was reported 
out of Committee in the 105th Congress by a vote of 19-to-1 and 
in the 106th Congress by a vote of 17-to-1, with one Senator 
voting present.
    As discussed earlier, part of the 1996 Act, Congress 
adopted legislation which required television manufacturers to 
include a device, dubbed the V-chip for violence, capable of 
blocking programming with certain ratings. In conjunction with 
the V-chip, the 1996 Act encouraged the video programming 
industry to ``establish voluntary rules for rating video 
programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent 
material about which parents should be informed before it is 
displayed to children,'' and to broadcast voluntarily signals 
containing these ratings.
    On February 29, 1996, all segments of the television 
industry created the ``TV Ratings Implementation Group'' headed 
by Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack 
Valenti. The group submitted its voluntary age-based ratings 
proposal to the FCC on January 17, 1997. The Implementation 
Group included the following industry groups: members from the 
broadcast networks; affiliated, independent, and public 
television stations; cable programmers; producers and 
distributors of cable programming; entertainment companies; 
movie studios; and members of the guilds representing writers, 
directors, producers, and actors.
    These age-based ratings came under intense and immediate 
criticism because they failed to identify specific content that 
was violent, sexual in nature, or contained mature dialogue. 
Thus, the ratings denied parents the ability to block 
individual programs based on objections to the specific content 
of the programs. In response to these criticisms, most of the 
television industry agreed to a ``revised ratings system'' 
which added designators indicating whether a program received a 
particular rating because of sex (S), violence (V), language 
(L), or suggestive dialogue (D). A designator for fantasy 
violence (FV) was added for children's programming in the TV-Y7 
category. This revised ratings system was approved by an FCC 
order on March 12, 1998. In that same order, the FCC required 
manufacturers to include V-chip technology to block 
objectionable programming in at least half of televisions 13 
inches or larger by July 1, 1999, and in the remaining half by 
January 1, 2000.
    In 1998, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report 
(``An Assessment of the Television Industry's Use of V-Chip 
Ratings'') identifying two major implementation problems with 
the ratings system: (1) program producers or the networks were 
making the decisions on what ratings to use, and (2) NBC and 
Black Entertainment Television (BET) were not providing V-chip 
compatible content ratings. Specifically, the report found that 
79 percent of shows containing violence did not receive a ``V'' 
content descriptor. According to the Kaiser study, ``the bottom 
line for parents who want to use the V-chip ratings to guide 
their children's viewing is clear: Parents cannot rely on the 
content descriptors, as currently employed, to block all shows 
containing adult language, violence or sexual content.'' In 
addition, with respect to children's programming, the failure 
to use the ``V'' descriptor and the rare use of the ``FV'' 
descriptor led the report to conclude that ``there is no 
effective way for parents to block out all children's shows 
containing violence.''
    In addition to concerns about the application of the 
ratings system, national surveys conducted by the Kaiser Family 
Foundation after the ratings system was implemented show that 
an overwhelming majority of parents do not know the meaning of 
the content ratings. For example, a survey conducted by the 
Kaiser Family Foundation in 1999 found that only 3 percent of 
parents knew that the rating ``FV'' stood for ``fantasy 
violence'' and 2 percent knew that ``D'' stood for ``suggestive 
dialog.'' \18\  An update released in 2001 showed that 14 
percent of parents knew the meaning of ``FV'' and 5 percent 
knew the meaning of ``D.'' \19\ 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Kaiser Family Foundation, How Parents Feel (and What They 
Know) About TV, the V-Chip, and the TV Ratings System, (1999).
    \19\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents and the V-Chip 2001: A 
Kaiser Family Foundations Survey, (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, in March 2004, the Ad Council released the result 
of its nationwide survey of parents with children aged 2 to 17, 
which found that while most parents are concerned about age-
appropriate television content, less than 10 percent of all 
parents are using the V-chip. Furthermore, the survey found 
that approximately 80 percent of parents that own a television 
set with a V-chip are unaware that their television has the 
technology.

                       C. SAFE HARBOR REGULATION

    Some have questioned whether limiting the distribution of 
violent programming to certain hours of the day would be 
consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution. 
Attorney General Janet Reno responded to some of these 
questions when she testified in October 1993 that the safe 
harbor approach in S. 1383 and the other bills before the 
Committee at that time were constitutional.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Testimony of Attorney General Janet Reno, Hearing on S. 1383, 
the Children's Protection from Violent Programming Act of 1993, et al., 
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
October 20, 1993, p. 30, 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While no court has ruled specifically on the 
constitutionality of the approach taken by title II of S. 2056, 
there appear to be many lines of decisions that would support 
the constitutionality of the safe harbor approach to television 
violence. This legislation could fall within the ambit of the 
clear and present danger exception, the limitations on 
commercial speech and speech harmful to children, the strict 
scrutiny test, and a regulation of time, place, and manner. The 
following discussion focuses on the recent opinions concerning 
broadcast indecency and the strict scrutiny test as examples of 
the lines of analysis that appear to support the 
constitutionality of the safe harbor approach. This discussion 
is not exhaustive, and there may well be arguments to justify 
the legislation which do not appear below.

1. Safe Harbor Under an ACT IV Case Analysis

    The Court of Appeals decision in ACT IV \21\ to uphold the 
safe harbor for broadcast indecency provides, perhaps, the best 
indication that the courts would uphold the safe harbor 
approach for television violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ 58 F. 3rd 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1992, Congress enacted legislation sponsored by Senator 
Robert Byrd to prohibit the broadcast of indecent programming 
during certain hours of the day. The Byrd amendment allowed 
indecent broadcasts between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.; 
except for public broadcast stations that would go off the air 
at midnight or before were permitted to air indecent broadcasts 
as early as 10 p.m.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Congress had already prohibited obscene and indecent 
broadcasts many years earlier. Section 1464 of title 18, United States 
Code, prohibits the broadcast of any obscene, indecent, or profane 
language by means of radio communication. This language was enacted 
first in the Radio Act of 1927, again as part of section 326 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, and was moved into title 18 in 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 30, 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia, sitting en banc, upheld the 
constitutionality of the Byrd amendment in ACT IV. The court 
found, in a seven to four opinion, that the safe harbor 
approach, also called ``channeling,'' satisfied the two-part 
``strict scrutiny'' test.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\  While the court upheld the safe harbor approach implemented 
by the Byrd amendment, it found that the different treatment of certain 
public broadcast stations was unjustified. The court thus directed the 
FCC to modify its rules to apply a consistent safe harbor of 6 a.m. to 
10 p.m. for all broadcast stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The court found that the Government met the first prong of 
the test by establishing that the Government had a ``compelling 
governmental interest'' in protecting children from the harm 
caused by indecency. The court found two compelling 
governmental interests, and left open the possibility of a 
third.\24\ First, the court found that ``the Government has a 
compelling interest in supporting parental supervision of what 
children see and hear on the public airwaves.'' \25\ The court 
cited Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 638, for the 
proposition that Government has a ``fundamental interest in 
helping parents exercise their `primary responsibility for 
[their] children's well-being' with `laws designed to aid [in 
the] discharge of that responsibility.'' \26\ Second, the court 
found that ``the Government's own interest in the well-being of 
minors provides an independent justification for the regulation 
of broadcast indecency.'' It quoted the Supreme Court again in 
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (1982) for the 
proposition that ``. . . a State's interest in safeguarding the 
physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling. 
A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the 
healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity 
as citizens. Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed 
at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth 
even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of 
constitutionally protected rights.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ The court found it unnecessary to address the FCC's contention 
that there is also a compelling governmental interest in protecting the 
home against intrusion by offensive broadcasts. ACT IV, 660-661.
    \25\ Ibid.
    \26\ Ibid.
    \27\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The court found that the legislation met the second prong 
of the test because it uses the ``least restrictive means'' to 
accomplish that governmental interest. Here, the court noted 
that, in choosing the hours during which indecency would be 
banned, the Government must balance the interests of protecting 
children with the interests of adults. ``The question, then, is 
what period will serve the compelling governmental interests 
without unduly infringing on the adult population's right to 
see and hear indecent material.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Ibid., 665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After reviewing the evidence compiled by the FCC, the court 
upheld the determination that a ban on indecent programming 
during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. satisfied the 
balance and was the least restrictive means. The court noted 
that, to the extent that such a ban affected the rights of 
adults to hear such programming, ``adults have alternative 
means of satisfying their interest in indecent material at 
other hours in ways that pose no risk to minors [such as 
renting videotapes, computer services, audio tapes, etc.].'' 
\29\ The court stated further that, ``[a]lthough the 
restrictions burden the rights of many adults, it seems 
entirely appropriate that the marginal convenience of some 
adults be made to yield to the imperative needs of the young.'' 
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Ibid., 666.
    \30\ Ibid., 667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The reasoning of the court in ACT IV appears to apply 
equally to title II of S. 2056. As with indecency, the 
Government has a compelling interest in protecting the moral 
and psychological well-being of children against the harm of 
viewing television violence. Also as with indecency, 
restricting television violence to certain hours of the day 
balances the rights of adults to watch violent programming with 
the interests of protecting children. Adults have other ways of 
obtaining access to violent programming just as they have other 
ways of obtaining indecent materials. Thus, the decision 
upholding the safe harbor for indecency appears to provide 
strong support for finding a safe harbor for violence to be 
constitutional.

2. The Strict Scrutiny Test

    The strict scrutiny test, which was used in the ACT IV 
case, is the most stringent test used to analyze the 
constitutionality of a First Amendment challenge. The following 
discussion assesses the violence safe harbor approach under 
strict scrutiny, not because it is certain that this test will 
apply, but because, if the violence safe harbor approach passes 
the strict scrutiny test, it certainly would pass any lesser 
standard of review. Regulation will pass the strict scrutiny 
test if the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet a 
compelling governmental interest.
    Congress has developed a long and detailed record to 
justify the violence safe harbor approach. Congress has held 
hearings to explore various approaches to television violence 
in every decade since the 1950s. The Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation alone has held 25 
hearings over the past 3 decades on this topic, including at 
least five hearings specifically on the safe harbor approach. 
The Committee has laid extensive groundwork for considering the 
least restrictive means of protecting children from violence on 
television. By contrast, the Byrd amendment, the legislation at 
issue in the ACT IV case, was adopted on the Senate floor 
without any Committee hearings.
            a. Compelling Governmental Interest
    The Government has several compelling interests in 
protecting children from the harmful effects of viewing 
violence which are discussed below: an interest in protecting 
children from harm, an interest in protecting society in 
general, an interest in helping parents raise their children, 
and an interest in the privacy of the home. Each of these are 
discussed below.
    Harm to Children.--Government has a compelling interest in 
protecting children from the harm caused by television 
violence. As several witnesses have testified before the 
Committee and numerous studies have concluded, children's 
viewing of violence on television encourages violent and anti-
social behavior, either as children or later as adults. These 
studies have demonstrated a causal connection between viewing 
violence and violent behavior.\31\ These studies have included 
field studies of the effect of television on persons in real 
life and laboratory studies. While the study in 1972 by the 
Surgeon General concluded that there was a causal relationship 
between viewing violence and behavior primarily among those 
children predisposed to violence, more recent research by NIMH 
and others demonstrates that violent television programming 
affects almost all children. Over 35 years of laboratory and 
real-life studies provide evidence that televised violence is a 
cause of aggression among children, both contemporaneously, and 
over time. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, 
both genders, at all socio-economic levels, and at all levels 
of intelligence. The effect is not limited to children who are 
already disposed to being aggressive, and it is not restricted 
to the United States.\32\ While it is perhaps axiomatic that 
children who become violent because of television suffer harm, 
it is worth noting that such children suffer harm in many ways. 
For example, children exposed to excessive violence can become 
anti-social, distant from others, and unproductive members of 
society, especially if their actions arouse fear in other 
people. They can suffer from imprisonment or other forms of 
criminal punishment if their violence leads to illegal 
behavior. Violent behavior may not be the only harm caused by 
viewing violent television. According to the APA, viewing 
violence can cause fearfulness, desensitization, or an 
increased appetite for more violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Among these are studies conducted by the American Medical 
Association, the American Psychological Association, the National 
Institute of Mental Health, the Center for Disease Control, and 
numerous studies by individual researchers.
    \32\ Written Testimony of Dr. Leonard Eron, Professor of Psychology 
and Senior Research Scientist, Institute for Social Research, 
University of Michigan, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, Communications Subcommittee, May 18, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Harm of Society.--A related compelling governmental 
interest is the need to protect society as a whole from the 
harmful results of television-induced violent behavior. A child 
who views excessive amounts of television violence is not the 
only person who suffers harm. In his testimony in 1999, Dr. 
Eron testified that violent programming can adversely affect 
society because children who watch excessive amounts of 
television when they are young are more ``prone to be convicted 
for more serious crimes by age 30; more aggressive while under 
the influence of alcohol; and, harsher in the punishment they 
administered to their own children.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Written Testimony of Dr. Eron before the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Communications Subcommittee, July 
12, 1995, p. 2. Dr. Eron further warns that ``. . . like secondary 
smoke effects . . . don't think that just because you have protected 
your child from the effects of television violence that your child is 
not affected. You and your child might be the victims of violence 
perpetrated by someone who as a youngster, did learn the motivation for 
and the techniques of violence from television.'' Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Helping Parents Supervise Their Children.--In addition to 
the governmental interests in protecting children and society 
from harm, the courts have also recognized a compelling 
governmental interest in helping parents supervise what their 
children watch on television. In Ginsberg, the Supreme Court 
upheld a New York statute making it illegal to sell obscene 
material to children. The Court noted that it was proper for 
legislation to help parents exercise their ``primary 
responsibility for [their] children's well-being with laws 
designed to aid [in the] discharge of that responsibility.'' 
\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Privacy of the Home.--The Government's interest in 
protecting the privacy of the home from intrusion by violent 
programming may provide another compelling governmental 
interest. The Supreme Court has recognized that ``in the 
privacy of the home . . . the individual's right to be left 
alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an 
intruder.'' \35\ The right to privacy in one's home was 
recently used to uphold legislation limiting persons from 
making automated telephone calls to residences and small 
businesses.\36\ Just as subscribers to telephones do not give 
permission to telemarketers to place automated telephone calls, 
the ownership of a television does not give programmers 
permission to broadcast material that is an intrusion into the 
privacy of the home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978).
    \36\ Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. The Least Restrictive Means
    Opponents of the legislation argue that the safe harbor 
approach to television violence is not the least restrictive 
means of accomplishing the goals of reducing children's 
exposure to television violence. Some in the broadcast industry 
argue that the industry should be trusted to regulate itself. 
Parents should bear the primary responsibility for protecting 
their children, according to some observers. Others say that 
the warnings and advisories that many programmers now add to 
certain shows are a lesser restrictive means of protecting 
children. In addition, opponents of legislation assert that the 
V-chip and the television ratings system provide a less 
restrictive means of protecting children.
    In United States v. Playboy, 329 U.S. 803 (2000), the 
Supreme Court invalidated a provision in the 1996 Act that 
required cable operators to either scramble sexually explicit 
channels in full, or limit programming on such channels to 
hours when children are not likely to be watching. The Court 
held that the provision was a content based restriction. The 
Court further held that the requirements of the provision were 
not the least restrictive means of achieving the Government's 
goal. The Court found that another provision in the 1996 Act, 
that required cable operators to fully block any channel upon 
request by a subscriber provided a less restrictive 
alternative. The Court added that even if this option was not 
widely used by cable subscribers, the Government bears the 
burden of proving that the available alternative is not 
effective. Title II of S. 2056 is crafted in part to respond to 
Playboy. The FCC is only directed to implement a safe harbor 
for violence after it determines that the V-chip and ratings 
system are ineffective alternative means of protecting children 
from television violence. Prior to reaching such a 
determination, the FCC is directed to prohibit violent 
programming that is not electronically blockable, i.e., that is 
not encoded specifically with a rating for violent content.
    While the Committee cannot predict the outcome of the FCC's 
analysis of the effectiveness of the V-chip and the ratings 
system, the Committee does note that parental supervision alone 
may not sufficiently protect children from violence on 
television. For example, the problem of children's exposure to 
violence on television is especially acute for residents of 
inner city neighborhoods. According to Gael Davis of the 
National Council of Negro Women, ``Violence is the No. 1 cause 
of death in the African-American community. . . . [I]n south 
central [Los Angeles] . . . [t]he environment is permeated with 
violence. It is unsafe for children to walk to and from school. 
We have 80 percent latch-key children, where there will be no 
parent in the home during the afterschool hours when they are 
viewing the television. The television has truly become our 
electronic babysitter.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Testimony of Gael T. Davis, President, East Side Section, 
National Council of Negro Women, Hearing on S. 1383, the Children's 
Protection from Violent Programming Act of 1993, et al. before the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, October 20, 
1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many children do not have the benefit of parents willing 
and able to monitor the television programming they watch. 
According to William Abbott of the Foundation to Improve 
Television, ``millions of children watch television 
unsupervised, one-fourth of our children have but a single 
parent (the latch-key kids).'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Testimony of William Abbott, President, Foundation to Improve 
Television, before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Hearing on Television Violence, July 12, 1995.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the ``strict scrutiny'' test, a regulation that 
limits freedom of speech based on the content must use ``the 
least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.'' 
\39\ As the following discussion demonstrates, in the absence 
of an effective V-chip and content based ratings system, the 
safe harbor approach is the only approach that has a 
significant chance of furthering the compelling governmental 
interest in protecting American children from the impact of 
television violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Sable Communications of California., Inc v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 
126 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Industry Self-Regulation.--The television industry has been 
directed to improve its programming by Congress for over 40 
years. The first congressional hearings on television violence 
were held in 1952. Hearings were held in the Senate in 1954 and 
again in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and again, three times 
since 2000. At many of these hearings, representatives of the 
television industry testified that they were committed to 
ensuring that their programming was safe and appropriate for 
children. In 1972, the Surgeon General called for Congressional 
action, but this call was ignored after the broadcast industry 
reached an agreement with the FCC to restrict violent programs 
and programs unsuitable for children during the family hour. 
There is substantial evidence, however, that despite the 
promises of the television industry, the amount of violence on 
television is far greater than the amount of violence in 
society and continues to increase. According to one study, 
``[s]ince 1955, television characters have been murdered at a 
rate one thousand times higher than real-world victims. Indeed, 
television violence has far outstripped reality since the 
1950s.'' \40\ The incentives of the television industry to air 
violent programming are best illustrated by a quote from a memo 
giving directions to the writers of the program ``Man Against 
Crime'' on CBS in 1953: ``It has been found that we retain 
audience interest best when our stories are concerned with 
murder. Therefore, although other crimes may be introduced, 
somebody must be murdered, preferably early, with the threat of 
more violence to come.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter, and Stanley Rothman, 
Prime Time: How TV portrays American Culture, (Regnery Publishing, 
Inc., Washington, D.C., 1994), p. 275.
    \41\ Quoted in Eric Barnouw, The Image Empire, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 1992, the four broadcast networks released a 
common code of standards that many criticized for being weaker 
than the networks' own code of practices. In any case, the code 
appears to have had little effect on the amount of violence on 
television.
    Recent efforts by the broadcast and cable industries to 
educate parents about the V-chip and channel blocking can be 
viewed as another effort to avoid regulation without affecting 
the amount of violent programming to which children are 
exposed.
    Warning Labels.--Some observers argue that a requirement to 
put warnings or parental advisories before certain violent 
programs would be a less restrictive means of satisfying the 
Government's interest in protecting children. The Committee has 
received no evidence, however, that such warnings accomplish 
the purpose of protecting children. Despite the industry's 
efforts to air such advisories on their own initiative, the 
National Parent-Teacher's Association and the Foundation to 
Improve Television support a safe harbor approach. Indeed, 
there is some reason to believe that advisories may increase 
the amount of violence on television, as some observers believe 
that programmers may want a warning label to be placed on a 
program in order to attract viewers.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ For example, Ms. Lindsay Wagner, a television actress, 
testified in 1993 that film makers sometimes lobby to get an R rating. 
``We now have a couple of generations that have been reared on violence 
for fun and many flock to the films with warnings.'' Testimony of Ms. 
Lindsay Wagner, Hearing on S. 1383, the Children's Protection from 
Violent Programming Act of 1993, before the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, without parental supervision, such warning 
labels may have the opposite effect of increasing the number of 
children who watch violent programming. In addition, warnings 
that appear once at the very beginning of a program may not be 
seen by a viewer who does not see the beginning of a program. 
Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that such warnings 
would be effective in the age of channel surfing.
    Parental Responsibility and Control Technologies.--Some 
observers believe that parents should bear the primary 
responsibility for protecting their children from violent 
programming, and that a variety of technologies are now 
available to assist parents in controlling the programs that 
their children watch. For several reasons, these approaches do 
not appear to be effective.
    Even when parents are available and concerned about the 
television programs that their children watch, they may not be 
able to monitor their children's television viewing habits at 
all times. According to one survey, 66 percent of homes have 
three or more television sets, and 54 percent of children have 
a TV set in their own bedrooms. Children often watch television 
unsupervised. In fact, 55 percent of children usually watch 
television alone or with friends, but not with their families.
    The implementation of the safe harbor approach is 
contingent upon the FCC finding that the content based ratings 
system, when used in conjunction with the V-chip, provides an 
ineffective means of protecting children from television 
violence. If the FCC makes such a determination, it is unlikely 
that other technology-based solutions will more appropriately 
address the issue of children and television violence. In 
addition, technology-based solutions may require parents to 
spend money to purchase the new technologies. Development of 
such technologies are also uncertain. There are also questions 
about the ability of parents to program the technologies 
effectively. In many households, the children often are more 
comfortable with the technologies than the parents.

3. Definition of Violent Video Programming

    Title II of S. 2056 adopts the same approach toward violent 
video programming as Congress has previously adopted for 
indecency. Section 1464 of title 18 prohibits the broadcast of 
indecency but does not contain a definition of the term. In 
1975, the FCC adopted a definition of indecency that the courts 
have upheld. While it may be difficult to craft a definition of 
violent video programming, that is not overbroad, that is not 
vague, and that is consistent with the research of harm caused 
to children, these are exactly the tasks that the FCC was 
created to perform. The FCC can hold its own hearings, seek 
comment from the industry and the public, and review the 
research in detail in order to develop a definition that 
satisfies constitutional scrutiny.
    Some observers cite the case of Video Software Dealers 
Association v. Webster to support the position that legislation 
to restrict violent video material is unconstitutional.\43\ 
That case, however, concerned a statute that neither contained 
a definition of violent video material nor delegated the 
definition to an expert regulatory agency. Title II of S. 2056, 
by contrast, does not take effect until the FCC issues a 
definition of violent video programming. In Davis-Kidd Books v. 
McWherter, the court overturned a statute that contained a 
definition that was overly vague.\44\ While this case 
demonstrates the difficulty of defining violent video 
programming, it does not stand for the proposition that such 
term is incapable of being defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992).
    \44\ 866 S.W.2d 250 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Applicability to Multichannel Video Programming Distribution 
        Services

    Some question the constitutionality of restricting violence 
on multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) services, 
including cable and direct broadcasting satellite (DBS), noting 
that Red Lion,\45\ Pacifica, and the ACT cases pertain only to 
broadcasting, not to cable or any other form of media. However, 
the strict scrutiny test applies to any content regulation, not 
just those imposed on broadcast stations. Court cases indicate 
that a restriction on violent video programming could, 
potentially, be imposed on any media if it satisfies the strict 
scrutiny test.\46\ The court's rationale for subjecting 
broadcasting to a more restrictive treatment includes, the 
scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the pervasive presence of 
broadcast, and accessibility of broadcast to children. In 
recognizing the special status of broadcasting, the Supreme 
Court, in the National Broadcasting Co. and Red Lion cases, 
concluded that due to spectrum scarcity, broadcast frequencies 
are not available to all who wish to use them. The Supreme 
Court in ACT IV, addressed the pervasive presence of broadcast 
and its accessibility to children. The Court stated, ``the 
broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence 
in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent 
material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not 
only in public, but also in the privacy of the home . . . 
Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children . . . 
The ease with which children may obtain access to broadcast 
material . . . amply justifies special treatment of indecent 
broadcasting.\47\ The ACT IV court further noted that 
``broadcast audiences have no choice but to `subscribe' to the 
entire output of traditional broadcasters.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
    \46\ The court in ACT IV states, ``[W]e apply strict scrutiny to 
regulations of this kind [concerning indecency] regardless of the 
medium affected by them . . .'' ACT IV, at 660.
    \47\ Ibid., 659-660.
    \48\ Ibid., 660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as with broadcast television, MVPD services have grown 
to have a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all 
Americans and are uniquely accessible to children. Over 85 
percent of households now receive some form of MVPD service, 
with 90 percent of such households choosing expanded basic 
offerings. From the perspective of the viewer, and especially 
children, there is little if any distinction between broadcast 
programs and expanded basic programs that are carried on a MVPD 
system.
    Two recent Supreme Court cases indicate that it is 
permissible to regulate pay-TV platforms. The Supreme Court, in 
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. 
FCC,\49\ addressed the constitutionality of section 10 of the 
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 
1992. Although the Court struck certain provisions of section 
10, it held that section 10(a), which permits cable operators 
to decide whether or not to broadcast indecent programs on 
leased access channels, is consistent with the First Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. 
FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Playboy, the Supreme Court addressed the 
constitutionality of section 505 of the 1996 Act. While the 
court struck down the provisions in question, it did so on the 
grounds that it was not the least restrictive alternative, not 
because Congress cannot regulate content on cable.
    In fact, the District Court opinion in Playboy stated that, 
``. . . cable television is a means of communication which is 
pervasive and . . . [t]he Supreme Court has recognized that 
cable television is as accessible to children as over-the-air 
broadcasting, if not more so.'' \50\ Moreover, the Supreme 
Court in its consideration of freedom of speech under the First 
Amendment has recognized the need to protect children from 
sexually explicit material, particularly in the context of a 
pervasive medium.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Playboy Entertainment Group v. United States, 945 F. Supp. 722 
(1996).
    \51\ Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 750-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title II of S. 2056 is not intended to apply to premium or 
pay-per-view channels in recognition of the fact that parents 
have the choice to subscribe to these channels on an individual 
basis. This distinction between premium channels and pay-per-
view programs, on the one hand, and basic or expanded basic 
packages of cable or DBS programs, on the other, demonstrates 
the Committee's attempt to balance the rights of children and 
the legitimate rights of parents to watch the programs that 
they want to watch. In this way, the legislation avoids 
unnecessarily interfering with parents' First Amendment rights 
in order to meet the least restrictive means test.

                          Legislative History

    On February 9, 2004, S. 2056 was introduced by Senator 
Brownback (for himself and Senators Allen and Graham). On 
February 11, 2004,the Committee held a hearing on indecent and 
violent programming and its effect on children, and all five 
FCC Commissioners testified.
    On March 9, 2004, the Committee held an Executive Session 
at which S. 2056 was considered. The bill was approved 
unanimously by voice vote and was ordered reported with 
amendments. The Committee first approved a perfecting amendment 
by Senators McCain and Brownback that would impose a per-
utterance penalty; require the FCC to consider a number of 
factors when assessing a fine; create a cap on the total amount 
a broadcast licensee may be fined during a 24-hour period; 
establish deadlines for the FCC to act on indecency complaints; 
and compel the FCC to report to Congress annually about its 
indecency enforcement activities. The perfecting amendment was 
modified by a second-degree amendment by Senator Stevens that 
would create an escalating fine structure; double the cap on 
fines if the FCC finds certain aggravating factors present; and 
require the FCC to commence a license revocation proceeding 
against any licensee that has paid, or been ordered by a court 
to pay, fines arising from three indecency violations during 
its license term. Additionally, the Committee approved an 
amendment offered by Senator Stevens that would eliminate any 
restrictions on broadcasters or associations representing 
broadcasters from instituting a voluntary industry code of 
conduct governing a family viewing policy. The Committee also 
approved an amendment by Senators Stevens and Allen that would 
``streamline'' the process for imposing financial penalties 
against non-licensees who violate 18 U.S.C. 1464, and increase 
the cap on fines against non-licensee violators. An amendment 
by Senators Dorgan, Lott, Snowe, and Cantwell was approved that 
would require the relationship between media consolidation and 
indecent broadcasts to be studied by the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) and would suspend the FCC's June 2, 2003, media 
ownership rules while the GAO conducts its study.
    The Committee also approved an amendment by Senators 
Hollings and Stevens that would require the FCC to study the 
effectiveness of the V-chip and prohibit the distribution of 
violent video programming during the hours when children are 
reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
audience, if the V-chip is determined to be ineffective.
    The amendment is substantially similar to legislation 
previously reported favorably by the Committee. In October, 
1993, the Committee held a hearing on television violence to 
consider a variety of legislative proposals. Attorney General 
Janet Reno testified that the legislation pending before the 
Committee, including S. 1383, the Hollings-Inouye legislation 
establishing a safe harbor for violent programming, would be 
constitutional.
    On July 11, 1995, the Committee held its second hearing on 
television violence to consider pending measures, including S. 
470, the Hollings safe harbor legislation. S. 470 (104th 
Congress) is identical to S. 1383 (103rd Congress). The 
Committee subsequently reported S. 470, as introduced, on 
August 10, 1995, by a recorded vote of 16-to-1, with two 
Senators not voting. No further action was taken during the 
104th Congress.
    On February 26, 1997, Senator Hollings with Senators Inouye 
and Dorgan as cosponsors, introduced S. 363. S. 363 was similar 
to S. 470 but allowed the Commission to implement a safe harbor 
if it did not implement a content-based ratings system. On 
February 27, 1997, the Committee held another hearing on 
television violence in which S. 363 was addressed. Groups such 
as the APA expressed their disapproval of the current age based 
rating system proposed by the industry and noted their 
preference for a content-based ratings system. Kevin Saunders, 
Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma, testified that 
violent programming could arguably be considered obscene or 
indecent and the safe harbor approach is constitutional.\52\ On 
May 1, 1997, the Committee reported S. 363 with one amendment 
to add findings by a recorded vote of 19-to-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Testimony of Kevin Saunders, J.D., Ph.D. before the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, February 27, 1997. 
p. 17 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 26, 1999, Senator Hollings introduced S. 876, safe 
harbor legislation that was substantially similar to S. 470 and 
S. 1383. The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Byrd, Durbin, 
and Inouye. On May 13, 1999, the Committee held its third 
hearing on television violence and safe harbor legislation. 
Senator Hollings' bill, S. 876 was discussed at length, and 
testimony was offered as to the constitutionality of the 
measure as well as the adverse harm to children affected by 
exposure to violence on television. On September 20, 2000, the 
Committee reported S. 876, as amended, by a recorded vote of 
17-to-1, with one Senator voting present.
    On April 10, 2003, the Committee held its fourth hearing on 
the impact of violent material on children. Specifically, the 
witnesses testified on neurobiological research in the field of 
brain mapping and conclusions reached on the impact of media 
violence on children. On February 1, 2004, the Committee held 
its fifth hearing on television violence. Senator Hollings' 
safe harbor legislation, S. 161, which was incorporated with 
minor changes as an amendment into S. 2056, was discussed by 
the five FCC Commissioners.
                      Review and Filing of Report

    Before any report is filed by the Committee, it is reviewed 
by several staff members to ensure that it complies with 
Committee standards and the Standing Rules of the Senate. The 
Committee utilizes an intra-staff electronic system to 
distribute, review, track, and approve each committee report 
draft. The Committee's Legislative Clerk generates the initial 
GPO-formatted draft and manages the committee report process 
from start to filing.

                      PREPARATION OF INITIAL DRAFT

    As a general rule, it is desirable for the report to be 
drafted as soon as possible after a bill is ordered reported by 
the Committee. While a good part of the report language may 
already have been written as part of the briefing memoranda for 
the markup, it is always better to put together the description 
of Committee consideration of a measure while memories of the 
markup are fresh.
    The first draft of a committee report is usually prepared 
by the majority staff of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction 
of the measure. The initial report draft, a Word file, is 
required to:

   Contain all necessary sections;
   Contain accurate statements that are cited and 
        attributed properly;
   Present the material in a concise, clear, and 
        orderly fashion; and
   Have Tracked Changes enabled for a Committee record 
        of proposed edits, queries, and responses.

                        REVIEW BY MINORITY STAFF

    Once the draft report has been cleared by the majority 
subcommittee staff, it should be emailed to the minority staff 
of the same subcommittee for review (and cc'd to the 
Legislative Clerk for status tracking). The minority 
subcommittee staff should carefully review the report. All 
edits, queries, and comments should be visible with Tracked 
Changes enabled in the Word file. After review, minority 
subcommittee staff should email their majority counterparts and 
the Legislative Clerk with their agreement to the report (no 
change) or attach an edited Word file showing all Tracked 
Changes.

                           PENDING AGREEMENT

    The majority subcommittee staff is responsible for 
responding to the minority subcommittee staff's queries and 
approving/rejecting any proposed edits (with explanation) in 
the Word file. In turn, the minority subcommittee staff is 
responsible for responding to additional rounds of edits, as 
applicable, in the Word file. Edits and queries should be 
documented in the Word file until there is agreement on a 
mutually acceptable version of the report. Once an agreed upon 
version of the report draft is finalized, majority subcommittee 
staff should email the Legislative Clerk confirmation and 
attach the final Word file (showing all Tracked Changes).

                       FORMATTING THE GPO REPORT

    The Committee's Legislative Clerk reviews the Word file for 
all required sections and tracked changes, inserts the 
introductory paragraph language, researches and revises the 
Legislative History section (as needed), and conforms acronyms, 
capitalization, footnotes, citations, etc. to reflect 
boilerplate and the GPO Style Manual. The Word file is then 
converted to a coded file that becomes the official file 
(required by GPO). A GPO-coded file looks and functions nothing 
like Word, and Word is no longer used after the file has been 
coded--any new text must be typed or pasted into the coded 
file. In addition, if a report has Changes in Existing Law,\53\ 
the Legislative Clerk must research and format text from the 
reported bill draft, U.S. Code and/or Public Laws to create 
this section in the coded file. Once the coded file is 
completely formatted, it is distilled into a pdf file. Please 
note that neither the GPO-coded file nor the pdf file can 
convert back to a formatted Word document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ The GPO Style Manual requires a Senate report containing a 
composed CIEL to set main headings in Caps and Small Caps and secondary 
headings in all small caps. However, if a Senate report provides an 
explanatory statement that there are no changes in law, all main 
headings within that report should be set in all small caps and 
secondary headings set flush Italic Initial Caps. Also, this section 
begins a new page if following the Supplemental, Minority, or 
Additional Views section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     SUBSEQUENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

    After the Committee's Legislative Clerk has formatted the 
report, the pdf is printed and sent, in a file folder with a 
routing slip, to the Minority General Counsel, who will 
indicate any edits requested on the hard copy of the report, 
initial and date the routing slip, and return it to the 
Committee's Legislative Clerk. The Committee's Legislative 
Clerk will execute the edits and transmit the edited report, 
together with a copy of the requested edits, to the Majority 
General Counsel. After review, and possible further editing by 
the Majority General Counsel, the copy and routing slip are 
returned to the Legislative Clerk for further revision as 
necessary before being submitted to the Minority Staff Director 
and the Majority Staff Director, respectively, for final review 
and approval. During the review process, edits are often 
negotiated between the majority and the minority staff, with 
the goal of making sure the final report reflects as nearly as 
possible the views of the Committee as a whole.

                     FILING OF THE BILL AND REPORT

    The Senate must be in session for a bill and a report to be 
filed. The Majority Staff Director will notify the Committee's 
Legislative Clerk when a report is ready to be filed. The 
Committee's Legislative Clerk will then prepare a clean copy of 
the bill and the report for the Chairman's signature on the 
front page of the bill and the report. The Legislative Clerk or 
a designated staffer will then deliver the signed bill and 
report to the majority party cloakroom for filing. The 
Legislative Clerk is also responsible for notifying the Bill 
Clerk's office by e-mail when the bill and report are filed 
(attaching copies of the PDFs and related data files to the e-
mail) and transmitting the data file for the report to the 
Government Publishing Office (GPO). No accompanying statement 
or other action by the Chairman is required.

Ex-post Facto Filing of a Report

    On the occasion that a bill is reported and filed with the 
majority party cloakroom before its accompanying committee 
report is available, the committee report will be filed 
subsequently.

Special Reports

    If a bill is discharged and not reported, an accompanying 
committee report can not be filed. As an option requested by 
Committee staff to the Legislative Clerk, the committee report 
can be redrafted and filed as a special report. A special 
report is credited to the Committee and can reference a bill, 
but it's not attached to a specific bill.
    Substantive changes will not be necessary to convert the 
committee report to a special report. The Committee is allowed 
to keep the same title as the bill, reference the bill in the 
report, but language within the report cover, opening 
paragraph, and body that says that the committee report was 
``reported'' or ``accompanies the bill'' will need to be cut or 
changed to reflect fact (i.e., the report was ``ordered to be 
reported but the bill was discharged and passed by unanimous 
consent''). A special report is reviewed and filed like a 
committee report.

                                 TIMING

    As noted in the introduction, rule XVII of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate establishes a minimum period of time 
between the date on which a bill is reported and the date on 
which it first can be considered. It is important that the data 
files for a reported bill and the accompanying report are made 
available to GPO when the bill and report are filed. Failure to 
make them available in a timely fashion may result in 
unnecessary delay in the delivery of the printed report to the 
Senate and that may adversely affect the Senate's schedule or 
frustrate the Committee's intentions with respect to moving the 
legislation. Even if GPO has the files as soon as a report is 
filed, it may still take up to a week to obtain printed copies 
of the report, and even longer when other Congressional 
activity significantly increases the GPO's workload, which is 
another reason for getting the reports written and filed as 
expeditiously as possible.

                           COPIES OF REPORTS

    Although the Committee is allowed to request up to 150 
paper copies per committee report, due to the accessibility of 
electronic copies and the need to alleviate waste, only 3 paper 
copies are requested and saved exclusively for the Committee's 
archives. An electronic copy of a published committee report is 
accessible by visiting https://www.govinfo.gov/ (GPO) or 
https://www.congress.gov/ and searching by report number. The 
Senate Document Room, however, can provide 10 paper copies of 
each report. Please note that if demand for paper copies of a 
report or a bill is expected prior to filing, the Committee can 
request additional copies if the request is submitted before 
the report and bill are filed. The request must be made by the 
Committee Clerk through the Senate Document Room.
                            Things To Avoid

    Principal mistakes to avoid when preparing any committee 
report are the following:

   Unverified Statements.--The staff is responsible for 
        the accuracy of every statement in the report. If a 
        statement cannot be verified through citation to 
        outside authority, it should be dropped.
   Personal Opinions.--A committee report should 
        reflect the consensus of a majority of the full 
        committee and not the individual views of a single 
        Senator or of the staff member preparing the report. 
        The staff member must make sure that the report 
        accurately reflects the oral and written views adopted 
        by the Committee at the markup and does not contain any 
        embellishments that go beyond an accurate and good-
        faith description of these views.
   Bias.--The staff member should also ensure that the 
        report maintains a professional tone and unbiased 
        perspective befitting the Committee. This does not mean 
        that a staff member cannot be an advocate for a 
        position officially adopted by the Committee, but it 
        does mean that the presentation of any arguments for or 
        against that position in the report should be accurate 
        and unbiased.
   Extra Arguments for Opponents.--The opponents of any 
        controversial bill may scour the report for statements 
        to use in arguments against the bill. As noted in the 
        preceding paragraph, arguments for or against the 
        Committee's position should be fairly and carefully 
        stated. It may be possible in this manner to anticipate 
        and counter an argument that an opponent might use 
        against the bill. In doing so, however, one must be 
        extremely careful not to leave any loopholes or 
        careless statements that may be used against the bill. 
        It is often helpful to have another staffer who is 
        familiar with the bill closely examine critical 
        sections of the draft report to make sure that the 
        other staffer's interpretation of the language is 
        consistent with its intended effect.
                         A Few Matters of Style

    In order to ensure that committee reports are written in a 
clear, easily read and understood, expository style, it may be 
useful to consult a work such as ``The Elements of Style'' \54\ 
or any other work providing guidance on style, usage, and 
grammar. The Chicago Manual of Style is available online to all 
Senate staff at https://library.senate.gov/databases-and-
research/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ The Elements of Style, 4th Ed., William Strunk, Jr., E.B. 
White, Roger Angell, Allyn & Bacon (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The GPO Style Manual, however, is the technical style guide 
for all hearings and reports, and is available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf/GPO-
STYLEMANUAL-2016.pdf. There are several special rules observed 
in committee reports, some of which are derived from the GPO 
Style Manual, including the following:

   Use of Specific Time.--Avoid nonspecific time like 
        ``this year'' or ``today''--edit to reflect the actual 
        date.
   The Oxford Comma.--The Committee style in reports 
        and legislation is to include a comma after the 
        penultimate item in a series ending with ``and'' or 
        ``or''. Thus, the name of the Committee is the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
   Abbreviating Frequently Used Terms.--As should be 
        apparent from examples elsewhere in this guide, an 
        abbreviation, in parentheses without quotation marks, 
        should appear immediately after the first usage of a 
        term in a report that will be used multiple times in 
        the report. E.g., . . . the Committee on Commerce, 
        Science, and Transportation (Committee) . . . the 
        Federal Communications Commission (FCC) . . . voice-
        over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) . . . the 
        Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).
   Capitalizing Federal and State.--Generally the words 
        ``Federal'' and ``State'' are capitalized.
   Not Capitalizing Section.--The word ``section'' is 
        not capitalized unless it is the first word in a 
        sentence; neither are the words ``chapter'' or 
        ``title'', as in ``. . . would amend chapter 449 of 
        title 49, United States Code . . .''.
   Use of Subjunctive.--The subjunctive mood is 
        employed to describe what would happen if a reported 
        bill were to be enacted. Thus, ``Section 2 of the bill 
        would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to increase 
        the penalty for . . .'' rather than ``Section 2 of the 
        bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 . . .''.
   References to Existing Law.--References to 
        provisions of existing law in a committee report should 
        refer to the permanent law rather than the United 
        States Code citation if the law appears in a title of 
        the Code that has not yet been enacted into permanent 
        law (codified). \55\ See the 4th example on page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ All Federal laws of a general and permanent nature are 
arranged in a compilation known as the United States Code, where they 
are organized topically into 53 different titles. As of the beginning 
of the 117th Congress, titles 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 
23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, and 54 have 
been revised, codified, and enacted without substantive change as 
permanent law. As for the laws that appear in yet ``uncodified'' 
titles, the Code is merely prima facie evidence of the law, i.e., an 
editorial compilation of convenience. The provisions of those titles, 
which include several subjects within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee, can be cited by reference to the Code but--because the 
United States Code title in which they are contained has not yet been 
enacted as permanent law--they cannot be amended or repealed by 
reference to the Code citation. Thus, the text of section 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (relating to universal service) appears as 
section 254 of title 47, United States Code, but any amendment of that 
text must be made to the underlying permanent law, i.e., section 254 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, rather than title 47, United States 
Code. On the other hand, title 49, United States Code, relating to 
transportation was ``codified'' in 1994 and changes in that law are now 
effected by amending the appropriate provision of title 49. References 
in a report to such an amendment should refer to the United States Code 
citation (in no small part because the underlying laws that were 
``codified'' are repealed as part of the process), i.e., ``Section ---- 
of the bill would amend section 44922 of title 49, United States Code, 
(title 49) to . . .''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Use of Footnotes.--Footnotes are used to provide 
        bibliographic information or additional notes that 
        might be too distracting or digressive for the main 
        text of the report. Generally, the conventions of the 
        Chicago Manual of Style are adhered to when footnotes 
        are used to cite books, journal articles, magazines, 
        and other common research materials. The most important 
        requirement for footnotes providing bibliographic 
        information, however, is clarity. Confusing fonts, 
        unnecessary abbreviations, and inconsistent formatting 
        should be avoided.
   Citing a House or Senate Document.--References to 
        House or Senate reports and documents should include 
        the relevant report number and the number of the 
        Congress. \56\ References to House or Senate committee 
        prints should provide the title of the document, the 
        number of the Congress, and the number of the print. 
        \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ For example, H.R. Rep. No. 108-588, 7 (2004).
    \57\ For example, Guide for Preparation of Committee Reports: For 
the Use of the Staff of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, U.S. Senate, 111th Cong., (S. Prt. 111-33). (2009), 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Citing a Hearing or Hearing Testimony. When citing a 
        hearing, the title and date of the hearing should be 
        provided along with the committee or subcommittee in 
        which it was held. References to the testimony of a 
        specific witness should include the individual's name, 
        title, and organizational affiliation. \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ For example, Fishing Safety: The Policy Implications of 
Cooperatives and Vessel Improvements, before the Subcommittee on 
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 110th Cong. (2008) (statement 
of Leslie J. Hughes, Executive Director, North Pacific Fishing Vessel 
Owner's Association Vessel Safety Program).
                 Appendix: How to Introduce a Bill \59\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ The process and procedures described here are those that are 
in effect at the time this guide was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee staff members are often called upon to develop 
draft legislation for introduction by the Chairman or other 
members of the Committee. This appendix is intended to provide 
basic guidance to new staff members on how to go about getting 
a bill to the floor for introduction.
    When a subcommittee staff has a staff working draft nearing 
readiness for introduction, it should work with their 
respective Staff Director's office on the following steps:

   Resolve any questions of committee jurisdiction. 
        Please discuss ahead of time with their respective 
        General Counsel and Staff Director. If there is a 
        concern that the Parliamentarian may consider the bill 
        to be in the jurisdiction of another Senate Committee 
        (EPW, HSGAC, Energy, etc.) please discuss ahead of time 
        with the General Counsel and Staff Director. It may 
        also be advisable to write a short memo and seek an 
        opinion from the Parliamentarian prior to introduction. 
        It is much easier to resolve jurisdictional issues 
        before dropping the bill than after. Based on feedback 
        from the Parliamentarian, it may be necessary to have 
        portions of the bill redrafted or omitted to ensure 
        referral to CST.
   Draft any necessary memos to the Staff Director for 
        approval to introduce, particular questions of content, 
        and any other matters deemed necessary by the front 
        office. Submit through normal clearance process.
   Receive definitive approval to proceed with 
        introduction from the Staff Director.
   Draft any supporting documents as necessary, such as 
        summaries, section-by-section description, etc.
   Inform the Communications Director of the impending 
        introduction, alert him or her to any corollary issues, 
        and work with him or her to draft press releases, etc.
   Optional: Obtain letters of support. If not upon 
        introduction, you may wish to collect them for use in 
        markup.

    Last minute changes, if absolutely necessary, may be made 
by hand to the printed document. The general rule is that when 
handwritten edits on the printed document submitted to the 
cloakroom conflict with the electronically filed document, 
handwritten edits prevail. Do not make any change that has not 
been agreed to by all parties involved.
    In order for the text of a bill to be printed in the 
Congressional Record, a unanimous consent (UC) request must be 
included as the last sentence of the sponsor's statement upon 
introduction. If you have not done this, it may be possible to 
add a UC request, signed, to the top of the package, but you 
will have to work with the cloakroom staff directly to make 
sure they will allow it. Always making sure it is in the signed 
statement to begin with is much easier.
    For details on the Statement of Introduction, please see 
the next section. Requirements vary when the Senator introduces 
on the floor, however, following these guidelines is the 
precautionary approach for ensuring proper publication in the 
Congressional Record and saving yourself from multiple trips to 
the cloakroom.

                        INTRODUCTION STATEMENTS

    Requirements for the inclusion of introduction statements 
in the Congressional Record:

   Unless the sponsor intends to deliver the 
        introductory statement in person on the floor of the 
        Senate, turn in 2 copies of the bill and any statements 
        related thereto to the appropriate cloakroom. The 
        cloakroom will forward these to the Parliamentarian, 
        who determines which committee has jurisdiction over 
        the bill. The Parliamentarian informs the Bill Clerk of 
        the referral and the Bill Clerk writes that information 
        on the copy and assigns the bill number.
   If the sponsor is not going to deliver the 
        introductory statement in person on the floor of the 
        Senate:
     You need 2 copies of the bill, both with original 
            signatures. You may not copy the top page for the 
            second copy.
     You need 1 copy of the statement of introduction. 
            It must include a UC request to print the full text 
            of the bill in the record if that is desired.
     The UC request MUST be the LAST sentence of the 
            introductory statement for clerks to ensure that 
            the statement is printed in the Congressional 
            Record.
     The statement must be signed (original signature 
            of Senator).
     Staff contact information (name and telephone 
            number) must be on the back of the last page of the 
            bill and any statement.
     E-mail an electronic version of the statement to 
            [email protected].

Offices and Contacts

    The Official Reporters of Debates are responsible for the 
stenographic reporting, transcribing, and editing of the Senate 
floor proceedings for publication in the Congressional Record. 
Their offices are on the 4th floor of the Capitol building. 
They will deal with any introduction statements related to the 
bill. There is an individual who serves as the Coordinator of 
the Record. The Morning Business Editor (224-3079) compiles the 
introductions and statements for the Record. Since only a 
Standing Order under Senate Rules allows bills to be introduced 
at times other than during morning business, all introduced 
measures appear in the morning business section of the Record.
    The Bill Clerk (224-2118 or 224-2120) is responsible for 
preparing for print all measures introduced, received, 
submitted, and reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also 
assigns numbers to all Senate bills and resolutions. All the 
information received by the Bill Clerk comes directly from the 
Senate floor in written form within moments of the action 
involved.

Format for the Congressional Record

    To assist the Congressional Record staff in preparing the 
sponsor's statement, or the sponsors' colloquy, for printing in 
the Congressional Record, it is requested that:

   You attach the document file to an e-mail and send 
        it to Record at Secretary (in the address book, type 
        Secretary, Record) OR type [email protected]).
   You use Word or WordPerfect.
   You deliver the hard copy of the statement, signed 
        by the sponsor, to the appropriate cloakroom.
   The responsible staff person (the person to call if 
        there is a question about the document) signs the back 
        of the statement, including his or her phone number.
   The document be formatted as follows:

                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as our Nation wrestles with rising health 
care costs, the Senate will focus this year on legislation to address 
many complex problems.

     Notice that the title is in all caps and indented 
            15 spaces.
     Senators are identified as Mr., Ms., or Mrs. Only 
            the ``M'' is capped.
     Senator's last name is in all caps.
     Always address the Senator's remarks to Mr. 
            President, but never to ``Mr. Chairman'' or 
            ``Senator Smith.''
     Indent all paragraphs five spaces.
     Note: Please indicate ``LIVE'' or the statement 
            will be bulleted.
Editing floor remarks (Room S410-A)
    If the sponsor intends to deliver the introductory 
statement in person on the floor of the Senate, you should be 
aware that:

   Transcripts of remarks will be available to edit 
        within 60 to 90 minutes after the Senator speaks on the 
        floor.
   All copy is sent to GPO for printing every 3 hours; 
        so the window for editing is between 1 and 3 hours 
        after the Senator speaks.
   At adjournment, remarks generally are available 
        sooner than in the 60-90 minute range and are delivered 
        to GPO in less than 3 hours.
    If there are questions about this procedure, call 224-3152.

GPO PREFERRED SPELLINGS AND CAPITALIZATIONS FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL 
                    RECORD

  act (but Trade Act)
  administration (as in Obama administration)
  al-Qaida
  amendment
  bill (as in the GI bill)
  chairman (but Chairman Leahy, the chairman)
  cochair
  cold war
  committee (but Judiciary Committee)
  cosponsor (not co-sponsor)
  dialog
  Governor
  Government (if referring to U.S.)
  Ground Zero (New York site)
  Federal (but federally)
  Federal Government
  fiscal year 2003 (not FY03)
  majority, minority leader
  Member (of Congress)
  member (of the committee)
  Nation (but a nation)
  percent (not %)
  President Obama (not the president of a company or 
organization)
  rollcall (not roll call)
  September 11 (not 11th)
  State (but statehood)
  Supreme Court (and the Court)
  trust fund (always lower case, even after Social Security)
  Web site
  When referring to a city AND State, please abbreviate the 
State (as in St. Louis, MO).
  DO NOT use parentheses, Italics, underlining, or bold type.
  Money should be carried as $3 million, billion, or trillion.
  
                           [all]