[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H635-H643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 310, BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2005

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 95 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 95

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 310) to increase the 
     penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters 
     of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
     indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2) an amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Upton of Michigan or 
     his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order or demand for division of the question, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentlewoman from

[[Page H636]]

West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule 
for H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. This is a 
fair rule that I believe all Members of the House should be able to 
support.
  This bipartisan bill brings penalties for network television 
programming to modern standards. The legislation also enhances the 
Federal Communications Commission's ability to reprimand networks and 
individuals who violate indecency standards.
  In the last few years, there have been several instances that have 
prompted the need for this legislation. Two immediately come to mind. 
During the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, pop star Bono of the band U2 used 
offensive language while accepting an award on live television; and, of 
course, there is the infamous debacle that was the 2004 Super Bowl 
half-time show which I, by the way, was watching with my own family.
  Each incident occurred during prime time hours and both programs were 
widely viewed by families across the Nation. Parents should not have to 
be unwillingly subjected to vulgar behavior and blatant disregard for 
what is appropriate for prime time viewing hours.
  Provisions in H.R. 310 will increase the FCC fines for indecent 
broadcasts from $32,000 per incident to $500,000 per incident which 
will be applied to the network and other parties who knowingly 
participated and approved of the broadcast. There is also a 3-strikes 
provision that will give the FCC the option of revoking broadcast 
licenses of frequent offenders. This legislation protects local 
networks and broadcast companies from fines if they did not have prior 
knowledge, if they did not give approval or were unable to prevent the 
indecent broadcast from the parent company or network from happening in 
the first place. This provision judiciously places responsibility where 
it truly lies by protecting innocent parties.
  I am a strong supporter of this bipartisan legislation. We have made 
many strides in recent years providing parents with rating information 
they can use to determine what is appropriate for their children to 
view. We cannot tolerate instances where G-rated programming is 
intentionally and unknowingly to the audience turned into R-rated 
programming.
  These are good changes to improve the quality of television available 
to our children and families. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Upton-Markey manager's amendment. It is a strong bipartisan amendment 
that makes necessary clarifications and improvements to this 
legislation. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Virginia and congratulate 
her on her first rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill, but I am 
disappointed that the rule will not let us engage today in the debate 
that this House and our country desperately need to have, a debate 
about how the lack of standards in the broadcast media is threatening 
some of our most basic democratic values.
  The underlying bill, which I supported last year and intend to 
support again today, addresses a very narrow part of the problem of 
decency within broadcasting. It increases the penalties on media 
companies who openly flaunt the FCC's rules against obscene broadcasts.
  Mr. Speaker, when we give media companies the right to broadcast in 
our communities on our airwaves, one of the few things we ask in return 
is they refrain from broadcasting lewd, indecent programs during the 
hours that children may be listening or watching. That does not seem 
like a lot to ask, but many media companies seem to find it hard to 
comply even with the most basic rule, a rule most Americans practice 
every day in their lives.
  Put simply, you do not say crude or offensive things when you are a 
guest in somebody's home and their children are in the room. This is an 
American value that we can all embrace, so I would ask why the 
standards are different for the media. The bottom line is that they 
should not be.
  The FCC has fined a number of broadcast licensees over the past 
several years for lewd and inappropriate broadcasts, and I hope that 
the increased penalties in the bill will make these companies think 
twice before they do it again. But with all the money they make, I 
doubt that. But refraining from obscene broadcasts does not mean that 
our media companies are fulfilling their obligation to broadcasts in 
the public interest. In fact, I would submit that an even greater 
indecency is the declining standards of fairness, accountability and 
truth in America's broadcast media today. After all, should we not 
ensure that our broadcast media present a diversity of views about the 
most important issues that face the country? Issues upon which our 
democracy depends should at least be as important as regulating the 
words and images we allow broadcasters to use in sit-coms and Super 
Bowl half-time shows.
  Sweeps Week stunts only underscore how these large, distant media 
companies routinely sweep important local news, balance, truth, and 
objectivity under the rug. I am talking here about core American 
values, values that most of us were taught as children and practice 
every day: be accountable for what you say and do; be truthful and fair 
in your dealings; balance your approach to life. But time and time 
again, we have failed to demand that mega-media corporations uphold 
these most basic American values. And all this despite the fact that 
the same companies use the public airwaves broadcasting into our homes 
every night and are the primary tool that most Americans use to learn 
about the world around them.
  Ever since the Reagan administration rescinded the Fairness Doctrine 
in 1987 our broadcast standards have not only been in just a steep 
decline but they are fast approaching extinction.
  When newspeople present political opinion as hard news with no 
accountability or fact for truth, I call that indecent. When it becomes 
common practice to pay members of the media to deceptively advocate a 
political agenda on public airwaves without disclosure to the public, I 
call that indecent. When a television broadcaster uses his license to 
present one-sided, factually erroneous documentaries designed to impact 
the outcome of a national election without equal time or standard for 
truth, I call that indecent and dangerous.
  And what about the so-called reporter who gained access to the White 
House press room under dubious circumstances to ask loaded rhetorical 
questions without even his colleagues, much less his audience, knowing 
he is a fraud? I call that overwhelmingly indecent.
  In a relatively short time, we have abandoned the high ethical 
standards of truth and objectivity demonstrated by such giants as 
Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite in favor of the bias of pseudo-
journalism demonstrated by Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, and Bill 
O'Reilly. This is a sure recipe for the dumbing-down of America.
  In fact, USA Today reported yesterday that despite the fact that 60 
percent of Americans get their news from local television, those same 
companies have nearly given up covering local political races and 
issues in recent years. According to the article, in the month leading 
up to the last election, the one just passed, just 8 percent of the 
local evening newscasts in 11 of the Nation's largest TV markets 
devoted time to local races and issues.

                              {time}  1030

  Ninety-two of them paid no attention. That is 8 percent. In other 
words, for every minute of news that they show, they spend 4.8 seconds 
discussing the issues that shape our neighborhoods, our communities and 
our families, and for most Americans, that is the only news they will 
get.
  Enough is enough. The public deserves better. The American people

[[Page H637]]

know they are being deceived. They are fed up, and they are taking 
action to do something about it.
  Look at the 2 million comments that ordinary Americans sent to the 
FCC to stop even more media consolidation from taking place last year. 
The public expects us to do more. They expect us to act in their 
interests. They expect us to defend and uphold their values, values we 
should all share: truth, honesty, objectivity and balance. We can do so 
much more than what we are just discussing here today.
  When the committee met to report this rule last night, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I brought amendments to the committee 
that we thought would broaden this debate today into the one we really 
ought to be having.
  The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) amendment would have 
rolled back broadcast media consolidation rules to their pre-2003 
levels, and my amendment would restore the fairness doctrine and bring 
more accountability to the news, but we were rejected.
  They only wanted to talk today about decency, and we were not germane 
to the bill. In a technical sense, they may be correct, but we all know 
that to have a real debate on what is happening to our culture today, 
the House would have to talk about the issues our amendments address. 
Sadly, that will not happen today.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate, I intend to call for a no vote 
on the previous question so that I may modify the rule to allow for 
consideration of my amendment on fairness and accountability in 
broadcasting, and I hope that all Members of this House will join me in 
voting against the previous question to have this opportunity to 
restore fairness and accuracy in the media.
  I only hope that in the 109th Congress we will have that discussion. 
Our democracy could very well depend on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to the rule 
for H.R. 310. Yesterday, I too offered several amendments with my 
colleagues that would require broadcasters to perform minimum public-
interest obligations and ask GAO to study the link between indecency 
and media ownership. I am very disappointed that they were not made in 
order, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this rule and 
requesting an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, while we all believe in the need to reduce indecency in 
media, I do not believe increasing fines addresses the root causes of 
the problem, namely, the current trend of unfettered media 
conglomeration and its impact on creative voices. This bill is a 
response to the anger felt by millions of parents and consumers 
regarding our dumbed-down media culture today.
  The bottom line is, a consolidated media market controlled by profit-
driven conglomerates is bound to produce indecent, shock-value 
programming for the sake of viewership. That is why I joined my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), in offering an 
amendment that would request a GAO study on the connection between 
media ownership and indecency. I am very disappointed that the 
amendment was rejected.
  Furthermore, when big media gets bigger and the race for audiences 
turns to the lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the 
broadest possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from 
quality programming and the principles of diversity, localism and 
competition, crucial for the service of the public interest.
  This was why I supported an amendment offered by my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has been a champion in 
restoring the fairness doctrine. The Slaughter-Watson amendment would 
have made basic public-interest obligations an element of the broadcast 
licensees' renewal requirement. That includes the coverage of diverse 
interests and viewpoints in the local community, the requirement of 
holding two public hearings each year to ascertain the needs and 
interests of the communities licensees are serving, and documentation 
requirements of such public interest coverage.

  Mr. Speaker, the indecent media culture we are witnessing today 
cannot be simply modified by increased fines. It needs to be 
transformed through less media consolidation and greater requirements 
on broadcasters to serve the public interest. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule. Vote against the bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my distinguished colleague and new member of the 
Committee on Rules with me.
  (Mr. COLE of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
rule for H.R. 301, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. I 
believe this is a fair rule and one that accords both sides of the 
aisle a good opportunity to explore the issues surrounding this 
legislation.
  Just last year, the House took a strong step forward on this issue 
when it passed H.R. 3717 by a vote of 391 to 22. Unfortunately, the 
other body was unable to schedule this legislation for consideration 
before the close of the 108th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a real opportunity today. As a father and a 
husband, over the years I have had genuine concerns about the 
suitability of some of the programming that is now aired on television. 
As my colleagues know, the law holds that indecent material is not 
appropriate for television. Unfortunately, over the last several years, 
some in the media have concluded that they are willing to pay fines for 
the privilege of airing the very material that they know millions of 
Americans will find offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that we as the people's elected 
Representatives address the issues surrounding the airing of indecent 
material. This legislation is a good first step. It will restore some 
teeth to the law and begin to better protect America's children 
immediately.
  I know that my colleagues agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that 
no family should be exposed to some of the content that is now 
regularly aired on television. This legislation does not address just 
the infamous incident such as the supposed wardrobe malfunction at last 
year's Super Bowl. While it does not discriminate, it will help to 
restore a measure of decency to the airwaves.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. It is a 
fair rule, one that will allow us to fully explore the issues 
surrounding the Broadcast Decency Act of 2005.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, our discussion of the media's 
responsibility is incomplete without consideration of fairness and 
without consideration of the fairness doctrine. The public's airwaves 
are not just a forum for entertainment that might step beyond the 
bounds of decency but also a home to the marketplace of ideas on which 
our democracy depends.
  In other words, it is not good enough to hold broadcasters 
accountable for inappropriate wardrobe malfunctions. They must live up 
to the public good if they want to continue to use the public's 
airwaves.
  Our constituents depend on broadcasters for essential information 
about issues that affect their families, their lives. Too often, they 
are unknowingly relying on incomplete, inaccurate, or biased reports.
  This happens because we do not hold broadcasters accountable to the 
public. Under the current rules, corporate conglomerates are free to 
set the news agenda based on what they think sells or entertains, not 
what the public needs to know.
  Undercover government spokespersons are free to speak their opinions 
as trustworthy pundits, and media monopolies are free to use their 
power to provide only one part of the story. Broadcasters are failing 
the public when the airwaves are used this way.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another challenge and threat to our most 
cherished free speech values: the consolidation of

[[Page H638]]

media ownership. There is a movement that is reshaping the marketplace 
of ideas and eliminating the diversity of opinion critical to a vibrant 
democracy.
  No newspaper, radio station or TV network is perfect, but allowing 
single corporations to monopolize the information that average 
Americans receive gives media corporations and individuals like Rupert 
Murdoch too much power.
  In America ideas are not just another commodity like butter, steel, 
or cloth. Ideas are the lifeblood of our Nation. The FCC should be 
defending the free exchange of ideas, not giving a few corporations and 
their executives power to shut off the flow of ideas to American 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we do not vote for this rule until we 
have everything in it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind the Members that the issue that we are 
speaking about today in this bill is the raising of the fines for 
indecency, caused by several incidents, I think over a million, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) quoted last night in our 
Committee on Rules meeting, instances of inappropriate viewing on our 
television and our airwaves and on our radios.
  So I think to keep the focus of this bill and this rule is important 
for the Members to realize that this is something that goes right to 
the crux of our families.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman help us define what 
inappropriate is? Does the gentlewoman think that the film ``Saving 
Private Ryan,'' which depicted the incredible sacrifice by American 
troops on D-Day, is inappropriate and should have been kept off of ABC?
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I think the standard for inappropriate on 
the airwaves has been established by the FCC, and they are the ones.
  This bill does not speak to that. This bill speaks to raising of the 
fines.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
but this bill leads to self-censorship. Small stations who are fined a 
half a million dollars are going to be very cautious. ``Saving Private 
Ryan'' was kept off of dozens of ABC affiliates because they were 
afraid of a fine.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in wrapping up my 
previous statement, I just want to realize what the focus of this bill 
and what the focus of the rule is on.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In response to my colleague, at the end I am going to amend this rule 
to include what we are trying to do and what the speakers are speaking 
to. So that is perfectly legitimate for us to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the comments from the floor 
manager of the bill made clear one of the major goals of the Republican 
Party. It is to shorten the attention span of the American people.
  Among the things they think are inappropriate are not just things we 
might see on television but things we might hear on the floor of the 
House. The gentlewoman apparently thinks it is inappropriate for us to 
discuss on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the 
issue of media concentration.
  That is what we are talking about. The gentlewoman said no, no, no, 
you are off the subject. Well, many of us believe that excessive media 
concentration is a subject that ought to be addressed, and it is, of 
course, the intention of the majority party not to allow that to be 
discussed. Inappropriate to criticize those corporations that are 
increasing media ownership.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma said this is a fair rule. Well it is fair 
if the scale is poor, fair, good and excellent. In that case, I guess 
it is a fair rule because my colleagues let in one amendment.
  We will be debating, after this rule is adopted, the substance of 
this bill, probably the only bill that the majority will allow on our 
communications matter, for 1 hour and 20 minutes; 1 hour and 20 
minutes. If the Provisional Assembly in Iraq gave only an hour and 20 
minutes to a subject, we would be very critical of them.
  Once again I have to say, with regard to the people in Iraq who have 
been elected to the Provisional Assembly and who we are urging to 
practice democracy and respect minority rights, if any of them happen 
to be watching this proceeding, please do not try this at home. Please 
show more respect for full discussion than these people are showing.
  Now, I also want to talk about indecency. It may be one of my last 
chances to do it because the gentleman from Vermont is correct. What 
this has done, this furor, is to lead to censorship, self-censorship, 
but also censorship by the administration.
  I regret things like the Janet Jackson incident and what happened 
with her and that guy, but I think we have a greater danger now. The 
greater danger is the censorship of the free and open debate of this 
country. I guess I have more confidence than the majority in the 
families of America and the parents to be the main protectors of their 
children, not the majority party; and instead what happens is we have 
the Secretary of Education criticizing PBS and pressuring them not to 
run a show because it showed two lesbians.
  I guess maybe I am speaking out of self-interest. If these people 
keep this up, we just had some fool in the Department of Health and 
Human Services insist that a panel on youth suicide aimed at gay, 
lesbian, and transgendered teenagers not use the words gay, lesbian and 
transgendered, because those things are inappropriate; showing lesbians 
is inappropriate.
  I guess, Mr. Speaker, if some of these people had their way, I would 
be bleeped. I guess there would be a blank screen when I appeared on 
here, lest some people be somehow corrupted by the very fact that a gay 
man takes the floor of the House to talk about a rule that is 
undemocratic and a furor that leads to ``Saving Private Ryan'' being 
shut off, that leads to PBS being pressured not to show young people 
that there is in this world such a thing as lesbians, because that 
might somehow corrupt them.

                              {time}  1045

  I voted for this bill last year, so I am grateful to the majority for 
one thing. I voted for it, and it resulted in a degree of pressure and 
a degree of intimidation and a degree of intolerance and a failure to 
understand the value of free debate that I regretted and felt a little 
guilty about. So I am glad I have a chance to vote against it, as I 
will do.
  But I regret very much that the gentlewoman from West Virginia and 
those in the majority feel it is inappropriate to discuss media 
concentrations or any oppositions that might exist. And that is where 
we are today. We have a bill that will, I believe, result in more 
censorship, in more excessive attention to a fairly small problem while 
ignoring very large ones.
  I should say, finally, Mr. Speaker, understand why we have to cut 
this debate so short: because of our workload. We might actually be 
here until 4 o'clock this Wednesday, today, and we may even begin 
tomorrow. Of course, we are getting ready for a 10-day recess, so we 
may need a little extra time to relax. This House has met very little, 
we have done very little, and so the refusal of the majority to allow a 
debate on the important topics that we are talking about here, the 
effort by the gentlewoman from West Virginia to chide us, to say do not 
bring up media concentration and all those unimportant irrelevancies, 
is an example of the majority's disrespect of democracy, which they 
unfortunately continue to manifest.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to make a couple of comments regarding the gentleman's observations.
  I did not state it was inappropriate to debate this on the House 
floor, and I am only speaking about the indecency and the raising of 
fines in terms of a standard that is set by our Federal courts. So I 
take exception with that.
  I also take exception with his ownership of democracy. This is what 
democracy is. We are debating democracy, we

[[Page H639]]

are debating issues on the House floor, which we do every single day, 
and I am proud to be a part of that.
  The other thing I would say in terms of the bill we are discussing, I 
think it is important to remember that over 2 years ago, I believe, we 
passed this bill in enormous bipartisan fashion. It was brought to the 
committee by both the chairman and the minority Chair of that committee 
in unison in terms of the manager's amendment and the intent of the 
bill. So I believe that Members will know this is a bill we have worked 
on before.
  Personally, I was raised in the 1950s and 1960s, when I used to sit 
down and watch ``Bonanza'' and the ``Wide World of Disney.'' My mother 
did not have to have the remote control in her hand, which they did not 
have at the time anyway, to make sure I did not see anything 
inappropriate. All we are trying to do here is to raise the level of 
fines for those who willfully and intentionally have indecent and 
inappropriate action on television.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia, and I regret she would not want to 
yield, I guess she did not want to respond to me, even though she has a 
lot of time left. She is going to turn back her time. But she said she 
was not saying we should not debate these. I will make a prediction: 
she and the majority will never allow a debate on concentration.
  She says, oh no, we just do not want to debate it now. You do not 
want to debate it now, you do not want to debate it next month, you do 
not ever want to debate it. So the fact is this is not simply a case 
of, oh well, we are only on this one issue. It is the effort of the 
majority to suppress debate on the important question of media 
concentration. They will not bring it up now, and they will do 
everything they can to prevent it.
  So, yes, I think I am on the right side of democracy when we talk 
about whether or not to discuss this issue. Democracy says you should 
discuss it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I am happy 
that we are having this discussion of decency on the public airwaves 
today, and I am happy to be here with the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), who is one of the greatest champions in America for 
fair communication of ideas and artistic and creative thinking.
  I am surprised and disappointed, however, that this rule does not 
allow us to debate an issue that is just as important as public 
content, and that is diversity of viewpoints. The repeal of the 
Fairness Doctrine has hurt the objectivity of the media, and an 
amendment dealing with this was denied.
  In recent months, we have seen the unfortunate result of media 
consolidation, lack of local programming control, balance of news and 
information. One broadcasting company tried to use the public airwaves 
to air an untruthful and damaging so-called documentary criticizing the 
war service of a Presidential candidate. We have discovered the 
administration is using taxpayer funds to pay broadcasters and 
unqualified journalists to advocate administration policies.
  Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine would provide at least partial 
safeguard against such abuses. It would require broadcast licenses to 
cover both sides of issues or multiple sides of issues of public 
interest.
  As we are considering decency in the public airwaves, we should also 
give due consideration to fairness, truth, and balance on those same 
airwaves.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has 22 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and opposition to the 
underlying legislation.
  As someone who voted in favor of similar legislation last year, I am 
increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be 
developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill 
today.
  This censorship is being done by the corporate owners of our 
increasingly consolidated, less diverse media; but it is also 
significantly being done by the government, and that is what this bill 
is about today. What we are seeing is an increasing and insidious chill 
on free expression in the airwaves.
  There are a lot of people in Congress on that side of the aisle, my 
conservative friends, who talk about freedom and freedom and freedom; 
but apparently they really do not believe that the American people 
should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what 
programs they see on television or on the radio.
  There are a lot of people in Congress, including Conservatives, who 
talk about the intrusive role of government regulators; but today they 
want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can 
air. I disagree with that.
  A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society. Mr. 
Speaker, I am not a Conservative. I am a proud Progressive. But on this 
issue, I agree with some important conservative thinkers. Let me tell 
my colleagues what Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of 
telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, extremely 
conservative think tank, says, and he has it right: ``Those of us who 
are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media 
marketplace is a daunting task at times, but that should not serve as 
an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate 
parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if 
lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great 
offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me 
and every other American family. Censorship on an individual parental 
level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a 
government level is an entirely different matter because it means a 
small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is 
permitted to see, hear, or think.''
  That is and that should be the Conservative position. That should be 
the position of people who say get the government off our backs; we do 
not want government regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, increasingly in this country we are seeing censorship on 
the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political 
advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org, and on and on it 
goes.
  Let us vote ``no.'' Let us vote against this bill and support 
freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our 
children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without 
saying.
  As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am 
increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be 
developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill 
today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of 
our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done 
by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression 
on our airwaves.
  There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom 
and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the 
American people should have the ``freedom'' to make the choice about 
what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people 
in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of ``government 
regulators,'' but today they want government regulators to tell radio 
and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for 
this bill today will make America a less free society.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself 
in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of 
Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute--a very conservative 
think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position 
that he brings forth:

       Those of use who are parents understand that raising a 
     child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task 
     at times. But

[[Page H640]]

     that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in 
     to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of 
     the public without children.
       Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in 
     mind, I take great offense at the notion that government 
     officials must do this job for me and every other American 
     family.
       Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental 
     part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government 
     level is an entirely different matter because it means a 
     small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole 
     nation is permitted to see, hear or think.
       I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so 
     many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal 
     and parental responsibility about most economic issues, 
     seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural 
     issues.

  Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, 
and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is 
about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with 
you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's 
wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be 
tomorrow?
  Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the 
airwaves. In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement 
during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President 
Bush's role in cheating the Federal deficit. Last November, 66 ABC 
affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie ``Saving 
Private Ryan,'' starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined 
for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even 
though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically 
was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American 
soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC 
affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last 
November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United 
Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to 
their Church. The networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to 
air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode 
of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education 
Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included 
Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup 
from a family with two mothers in Vermont.
  Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of 
the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is 
that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this 
problem and make a bad situation worse.
  This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for 
so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any 
relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily 
applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small 
broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous 
cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them 
into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what 
will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this 
legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and 
Americans' First Amendment rights.
  In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my 
own State of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without 
exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this 
legislation will have on programming decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, 
President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.

    Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public 
                         Television on H.R. 310

       Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters, 
     does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local 
     community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility 
     to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there 
     must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public 
     airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in H.R. 310 are 
     extreme.
       The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity, 
     indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on 
     broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public 
     Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint 
     easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying 
     these proposals into law will make the situation worse.
       While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed 
     at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling 
     the effects every day. Public television's educational 
     programming for children has always provided a safe haven. 
     The same public television stations that take such care of 
     their young viewers also respect the intelligence and 
     discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing 
     choices for themselves.
       Vermont Public Television has always operated 
     responsibility in our programming for adults. At times, our 
     programs included adult language and situations appropriate 
     to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While 
     there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous 
     indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it 
     seems that context is no longer considered.
       Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights, 
     we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single 
     violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small 
     station like VPT out of business.
       Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told 
     broadcasters there was one word that would never be 
     appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations, 
     including Vermont Public Television, began to make content 
     choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.
       PBS programmers began making edits to national programs 
     being distributed to stations. An ``American Experience'' 
     documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might 
     possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just be to sure. 
     On ``Antiques Roadshow,'' a nude poster was edited. This 
     month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called 
     ``Dirty War.'' In the story, a woman showers to remove 
     radiation. When the program airs on PBS, that shower scene 
     will be edited.
       Our programming director, and no doubt most local 
     programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts 
     telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or 
     situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing 
     programs with words and situations that might even come close 
     to content that could be subject to fines.
       At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists 
     representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers 
     live on the air. There has never been a problem with 
     language, but the legislation's reference to using a ``time 
     delay blocking mechanism'' makes us worry. We don't use a 
     time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a 
     caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?
       Our programming director says the FCC proposals have 
     already made us rule out airing independent films on our 
     ``Reel Independent'' program. Films by Vermont filmmakers 
     that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted 
     for broadcast now.
       We cannot support H.R. 310 as it is written.

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill and the rule really missed the 
point. The point is that we are experiencing here in this House and 
across this country limitations on political debate, and that is the 
way this rule is structured, to limit political debate so that the 
American people do not understand what is going on.
  For more than 2 decades now, the Republican Party has sought to 
consolidate the media in America across the board, and they have done 
so also to limit debate by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine. This bill 
makes no mention whatsoever of the link between media consolidation and 
the rising number of indecency complaints.
  What do we have today as a result of the Republican Party's 
consolidation of the media in America? Five companies own the broadcast 
networks and 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks. They produce 
three-quarters of all prime time programming. They control 70 percent 
of the prime time television market share. These same companies that 
own the Nation's most popular newspapers and networks also own 85 
percent of the top 20 Internet news sites.
  Two-thirds of America's independent newspapers have been lost. 
According to the Department of Justice's ``Merger Guidelines,'' every 
local newspaper market in the United States today is highly 
concentrated as a result of actions begun under President Reagan in 
1987 and that continue today under President George W. Bush and the 
Republican leadership of this House.
  One-third of America's independent TV stations have vanished. There 
has been a 34 percent decline in the number of radio station owners 
since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act under the 
leadership of this House. There has also been a severe decline in 
minority-owned broadcasters.
  As the major networks have been allowed greater vertical integration, 
the percentage of independently produced new programming on broadcast 
networks has declined from 87.5 percent in 1990 to 22.5 percent in 
2002. It is barely one-fourth of what it was 15 years ago, independent 
programming, thanks to the leadership of this House and Republican 
Presidents.

[[Page H641]]

  Almost 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared: ``The widest 
possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic 
sources is essential to the welfare of the public; that a free press is 
a condition of a free society.''
  We no longer have a free press or free media in our country, as a 
result of the conscious, intentional consolidation of the media that 
has been authorized and orchestrated by the Republican leadership in 
this House and successive Republican Presidents.
  I have no doubt that every Member of this body would agree that the 
court sentiments that I mention here today should hold true, but it is 
also true that we are not allowed to debate this point and bring it up 
on the floor of the House.
  We have a lot to do here, and our Republican colleagues are not 
allowing it to be done. Free press is essential to a free and open 
society.

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a new member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues, especially 
for those on the other side of the aisle, that this Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act does not change the definition of decency, and it is 
not about censorship. It is about increasing the penalties and the 
fines for those entertainers and owners of radio and television 
stations that knowingly and willfully violate, and do it in a repeated 
manner, what we already know is a definition of decency.
  So it is disingenuous to suggest that we are trying to impose 
censorship or redefine what has already been well defined in regard to 
decency. I want to give, Mr. Speaker, an example. The Member from the 
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) had an 
amendment, and I do not want to dwell on this too much because he is 
here and I think he may be speaking about that. But he brought an 
amendment to the Rules Committee concerning a certain ad that we see 
many times on prime-time hour on television. And he had great concerns 
about that. And many members of the Rules Committee on both sides of 
the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, agreed that this 
advertisement was possibly a little on the tacky side, but that 
amendment was not approved by the Rules Committee because of that 
question of a redefinition of what is decent.
  So I just want to remind my colleagues that this is not about 
censorship or redefining decency on the airwaves, it is making sure 
that those who continue to abuse their privilege of broadcasting on our 
public airwaves, that they pay a significant fine and one that 
hopefully will disincentivize them from continuing this activity.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment that there is 
censorship because the Democrats are not allowed amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a year ago I stood before 
this Chamber during debate of this same legislation and remarked that 
by increasing fines for indecency violations we were addressing the 
symptoms of a problem but not the underlying causes.
  One year later, despite all of the public outcry, despite the 
millions of citizens who contacted the FCC and Congress advocating for 
localism and decency standards and unbiased news, despite all of the 
politicians bemoaning what is on our airwaves today, not much has 
really changed.
  Last year we fought unsuccessfully for an amendment that would have 
addressed the true effect of media consolidation by commissioning a GAO 
study on the relationship between consolidation and indecency on the 
airwaves. This amendment was not made in order by the Republican 
majority.
  It should come as no surprise that we will not get a vote on this 
amendment again this year. Once again, the leadership has shown us that 
the concerns of ordinary people are trumped by the interests of media 
conglomerates and of the Bush administration.
  We should allow the GAO to study the consequences of media 
consolidation and we should turn these results into action, passing 
legislation to ensure that a handful of companies will not get to 
dominate our airwaves, be it with filth or foul language or political 
propaganda or anything else that viewers would opt not to see.
  And I tell you, we Members who are involved in this are not going to 
rest until we put control of our airwaves back where it belongs, in our 
local communities and in the hands of the American people.
  To this end, I have joined with a number of colleagues in forming a 
media reform caucus, which will be working to make sure that the voices 
of the communities we represent are present at the table as Congress 
revisits the issues of media ownership and telecommunications 
regulation.
  And for those who share our concerns about the state of the media 
industry, I urge you to join in this fight. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, 
you have not heard the last from us; this fight is not over.
  Let me just comment on this court decision which a number of people 
have cited. Last June the 4th Circuit echoed the concerns I have been 
addressing here today, when it stayed the implementation of the FCC's 
relaxed ownership rules. But we have no guarantee that the FCC will not 
pass a new version that would again make it easier for a few big 
conglomerates to control our airwaves.
  In fact, it is quite likely that they will. We will have this fight 
all over again. So we should spare ourselves and the American people 
all of that trouble and do the right thing right now, and that is to 
commission this GAO study on the relationship between filth on the 
airwaves and consolidation, and in the meantime forbid any further 
action on putting the control of the airwaves in the hands of these big 
conglomerates.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. This 
is not about who is running the media, this is about the question of 
the shock jocks who have been pushing the moral envelope for all too 
long and the vulgar and indecent comments that come over the public 
airwaves.
  I think that seems to be a very different subject than who happens to 
own how many shares of stock somewhere. And there was, of course, the 
Bono use of vulgarity during the Golden Globe Awards, and of course the 
infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction during last year's Super 
Bowl and the half-time show.
  This was the last straw for many Americans, and families and parents 
and concerned viewers erupted in outrage, and rightly so. There is 
simply no excuse for that crudeness on the public airwaves. I want to 
emphasize that the anecdotes I just cited are only among the most well-
known commercial media strident efforts to edge ever further into the 
terrain of immorality and debasement.
  I commend outgoing Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Powell 
for showing leadership and for enforcing decency regulations. But at a 
time where a 30-second television ad costs $2.4 million, is a $32,500 
cap on penalties, that seems almost absurd.
  The legislation before us today would give the FCC true enforcement 
authority. It increases the cap to half a million dollars, which is a 
significant fine. It allows the fines to occur per violation instead of 
per broadcast, and it also permits the fines to be levied against 
individuals as well as broadcasters and establishes a three-strikes-
and-you-are-out policy.
  Each of those provisions strengthens the FCC's ability to enforce 
existing decency regulations and protect the airwaves, and thereby 
ordinary Americans, from offensive material.
  So I would urge that we proceed on the subject before us, which is 
dealing with these offenses, and worry about the other questions about 
who owns stocks where at a different time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend and colleague from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) for yielding the time.

[[Page H642]]

  Mr. Speaker, I plan on voting for this bill because I think it is 
about doing the right thing for the public interest.
  But I am going to vote against the rule, because we are missing an 
opportunity. We miss an opportunity to address the fairness issue, 
which is a very important one. I also think we miss an opportunity to 
strike a blow for family values over corporate profit.
  It seems that too often when the two are in conflict, invariably this 
Congress lets corporate profit trump family values. What I am referring 
to is an amendment that I offered. It is a bill that the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), myself, and others have cosponsored, that I put 
in the form of an amendment because it seemed relevant. What it would 
do is to treat ED ads on television in the same way that we treat ads 
for tobacco and hard liquor. They cannot be shown until after 10 
o'clock. The reason for doing this is that our airwaves are saturated 
with these ads for erectile dysfunction drugs. I think it has gotten 
out of hand and I do not think it is right.
  When I bring this subject up, people giggle and it is awkward to talk 
about it, but it is wrong in prime-time viewing hours, such as the 
Super Bowl when you have got tens of millions of people watching, a lot 
of them young kids, to be saturating the American public's mind with 
these pitches for ED drugs. It is just wrong. Most of it is for the 
purpose of competing between brands.
  It is a particularly relevant issue to the Congress and to the 
American taxpayer because next year this administration has decided to 
let Medicare cover these drugs. So here we have a finite amount of 
Medicare that needs to be used for cancer treatment and heart disease 
and any number of serious illnesses, and yet we are going to take a 
substantial amount of this taxpayers' money and use it to give to the 
drug companies to help them pay for advertising.
  As my colleagues know, in the Medicare prescription drug bill, we 
forbid the Federal Government from negotiating for lower prices of 
these drugs. These drug companies are paying half a billion dollars a 
year for advertising these drugs. And now as of next year, the American 
taxpayer is going to be footing a substantial amount of that bill. It 
is wrong. These things should not be advertised during family viewing 
times.
  It was one thing when Bob Dole and people of a certain age, which is 
pretty much my age as well, were the pitchmen. But these are younger 
actors today. It is disingenuous to be describing this drug as 
medically necessary. As is the way that they warn of side effects, be 
careful for a 4-hour experience and so on. We know how disingenuous 
that is. We can giggle about it, but the fact is it is wrong. It is not 
appropriate when young, impressionable, teenagers and children are 
watching. We have some responsibility for what goes across the 
airwaves. They are public airwaves. This amendment should have been 
added to this bill for consideration today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can 
change the rule to include my amendment to restore fairness and 
accountability in the media by requiring broadcast licensees to air 
programming that offers diverse views on issues important to the local 
communities in which they broadcast. This amendment was offered in the 
Rules Committee yesterday but was defeated on a party line vote. The 
majority may claim that the amendment is technically nongermane to the 
bill, but I think it is an integral part of this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is not a partisan one. Every Member of the 
House should be concerned by the direction that the broadcast media has 
taken, particularly in the last two decades since the rescission of the 
fairness doctrine. Ratings and sensationalism far too often replace 
responsible, nonbiased, and comprehensive reporting of the news. News 
is meant to provide balanced and important information on the issues 
that impact the lives of our citizens. The media has a most important 
responsibility to its communities to deliver the type of programming 
that meets the unique needs of each broadcast audience. In fact, it is 
more than a responsibility, it is an obligation.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can include this 
important amendment. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote 
will not stop us from considering the legislation. We will still be 
able to consider the broadcast decency enforcement bill in its 
entirety. We will still be able to consider and vote on the Upton-
Markey manager's amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us 
from having any opportunity this year, and probably this term, to 
debate and vote on the very serious matter of media fairness and 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, most of this debate has focused not on the issue before 
the House, whether we should raise fines on broadcasters and artists 
for violating the FCC standards for indecent conduct, but on the 
unrelated issue of media fairness. I want to point out to the Members 
that the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from New York would 
violate House rules because it is not germane to the underlying bill. 
Simply, we have broad bipartisan agreement that we need to be tougher 
on broadcasters and artists to make sure that children and parents are 
not surprised by indecent conduct during prime time. We should defer to 
the committee of jurisdiction, I believe, to evaluate the issues raised 
by the gentlewoman's well-intentioned but nongermane amendment.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate that the FCC has been looking 
at this issue of indecency and the fines related to it and it is 
through their efforts that this bipartisan bill has come to bear.
  This is about the preservation of family time on our airwaves. It is 
about preserving the core values and ridding the airwaves during family 
time of indecency and it ups and makes much more stringent the 
penalties of those broadcasters and artists who engage in this indecent 
and inappropriate behavior on the airwaves.
  One of the things my colleague from New York said in her opening 
statement is that viewers need to know what they will see, and I think 
that is the crux of this bill and this rule. Viewers need to know, 
families need to know that when they sit down with their families to 
watch television, they are not going to be exposed to inappropriate and 
indecent comments or actions on the airwaves.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It passed overwhelmingly in the last 
Congress. I believe it will pass overwhelmingly again here. I urge my 
colleagues to not only support the rule but to support the underlying 
bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 95--Rule on H.R. 310, Broadcast Decency 
                        Enforcement Act of 2005


                                  text

       ``In the resolution strike ``and (3)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) the amendment printed in Section 2 of this resolution 
     if offered by Representative Slaughter of New York or a 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order or demand for division of the question, shall 
     be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
     60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (4)''.
       Sec. 2. The amendment by Representative Slaughter referred 
     to in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment to H.R. 310, as Reported Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

                  Public interest standard enforcement

       After section 9, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):

     SEC. 10. IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARDS.

       (a) Implementation in License Issuance and Renewal.--
     Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Implementation of Public Interest Standard.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The purposes of this subsection are--
       ``(A) to restore fairness in broadcasting;
       ``(B) to ensure that broadcasters meet their public 
     interest obligations;

[[Page H643]]

       ``(C) to promote diversity, localism, and competition in 
     American media; and
       ``(D) to ensure that all radio and television 
     broadcasters--
       ``(i) are accountable to the local communities they are 
     licensed to serve;
       ``(ii) offer diverse views on issues of public importance, 
     including local issues; and
       ``(iii) provide regular opportunities for meaningful public 
     dialogue among listeners, viewers, station personnel, and 
     licensees.
       ``(2) Standards for public interest determinations.--The 
     Commission may not issue or renew any license for a 
     broadcasting station based upon a finding that the issuance 
     or renewal serves the public interest, convenience, and 
     necessity unless such station is in compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       ``(3) Coverage of issues of public importance.--Each 
     broadcast station licensee shall, consistent with the 
     purposes of this subsection, cover issues of importance to 
     their local communities in a fair manner, taking into account 
     the diverse interests and viewpoints in the local community.
       ``(4) Hearings on needs and interests of the community.--
     Each broadcast station licensee shall hold two public 
     hearings each year in its community of license during the 
     term of each license to ascertain the needs and interests of 
     the communities they are licensed to serve. One hearing shall 
     take place two months prior to the date of application for 
     license issuance or renewal. The licensee shall, on a timely 
     basis, place transcripts of these hearings in the station's 
     public file, make such transcripts available via the Internet 
     or other electronic means, and submit such transcripts to the 
     Commission as a part of any license renewal application. All 
     interested individuals shall be afforded the opportunity to 
     participate in such hearings.
       ``(5) Documentation of issue coverage.--Each broadcast 
     station licensee shall document and report in writing, on a 
     biannual basis, to the Commission, the programming that is 
     broadcast to cover the issues of public importance 
     ascertained by the licensee under paragraph (4) or otherwise, 
     and on how such coverage reflects the diverse interests and 
     viewpoints in the local community of such station. Such 
     documents shall also be placed, on a timely basis, in the 
     station's public file and made available via the Internet or 
     other electronic means.
       ``(6) Consequences of failure.--
       ``(A) Petitions to deny.--Any interested person may file a 
     petition to deny a license renewal on the grounds of--
       ``(i) the applicant's failure to afford reasonable 
     opportunities for presentation of opposing points of view on 
     issues of public importance in its overall programming, or 
     the applicant's non-compliance with the Commission's 
     programming rules and policies relating to news staging and 
     sponsorship identification;
       ``(ii) the failure to hold hearings as required by 
     paragraph (4);
       ``(iii) the failure to ascertain the needs and interests of 
     the community; or
       ``(iv) the failure to document and report on the manner in 
     which fairness and diversity have been addressed in local 
     programming.
       ``(B) Commission review.--Any petition to deny filed under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be reviewed by the Commission. If the 
     Commission finds that the petition provides prima facie 
     evidence of a violation, the Commission shall conduct a 
     hearing in the local community of license to further 
     investigate the charges prior to renewing the license that is 
     the subject of such petition.
       ``(C) Other remedies.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     preclude the Commission from imposing on a station licensee 
     any other sanction available under this Act or in law for a 
     failure to comply with the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(7) Annual report.-- The Commission shall report annually 
     to the Congress on petitions to deny received under this 
     subsection, and on the Commission's decisions regarding those 
     petitions.''.
       (b) Term of License.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 307(c)(1) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 307(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``8 
     years'' each place it appears and inserting ``4 years''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective with respect to any license granted by the 
     Federal Communications Commission after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Ms. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________