[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 16, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E376-E377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 16, 2004

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct a 
vote which I cast erroneously last week in support of H.R. 3717. I did 
not mean to vote for this legislation, and I would like that fact to be 
noted in the Record.
  It goes without saying that no one likes to vote against a bill that 
purportedly is designed to reduce the coarseness and crudity of public 
discourse. We are all aware that the limits of

[[Page E377]]

socially acceptable behavior have changed significantly and continue to 
evolve, sometimes in ways that are offensive to many in our society.
  But this legislation simply goes too far, imposing massive financial 
penalties and potentially license revocation for actions and words that 
are far too broad and ill-defined. Far too much authority is placed in 
the hands of the FCC--which is not a court, which is not elected by 
anyone--to determine what Americans can voluntarily listen to or watch. 
The courts have established clear parameters for unacceptable speech; 
this legislation goes much further, imposing massive penalties and 
punishment that could--and presumably would--vastly exceed the 
constraints imposed by the courts.
  Coming at a time when so many of our fundamental freedoms are under 
regular assault by those willing to sanction a lessening of personal 
liberty, this legislation is particularly disturbing. Many of those who 
long have described themselves as ``conservatives'' and ``upholders of 
the Constitution'' now sanction all manner of intrusiveness into the 
private and personal lives of Americans: whom the live with, whom they 
associate with, what they listen to, to whom they send emails. This is 
a period of serious overreaching into the personal and private lives of 
Americans. We as Members of Congress need to be more vigilant than this 
legislation suggests we are being.
  I appreciate that some of the proponents of this legislation are 
genuinely offended by what they hear on the radio or see on television. 
That is why there is an ``on/off' button and a channel selector on 
every TV and radio manufacturered. People should use them. Parents 
should use them. But Congress should not be recklessly imposing 
penalties of this scope on entertainers whom millions of our fellow 
citizens choose to patronize by listening to their programs.

                          ____________________