[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H652-H664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the pending 
business is the vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 95, on which the yeas and nays were ordered
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 198, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin

[[Page H653]]


     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Eshoo
     Oxley
     Reichert
     Stupak
     Wynn

                             {time}   1242

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Mr. BOYD changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette.) The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 95, I 
call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 95, the bill is 
considered read.
  The text of H.R. 310 is as follows:

                                H.R. 310

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Broadcast Decency 
     Enforcement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR OBSCENE, INDECENT, AND 
                   PROFANE BROADCASTS.

       Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator is 
     (i) a broadcast station licensee or permittee, or (ii) an 
     applicant for any broadcast license, permit, certificate, or 
     other instrument or authorization issued by the Commission, 
     and the violator is determined by the Commission under 
     paragraph (1) to have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane 
     material, the amount of any forfeiture penalty determined 
     under this section shall not exceed $500,000 for each 
     violation.''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection--
       (A) by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentence, if the violator is determined by the 
     Commission under paragraph (1) to have uttered obscene, 
     indecent, or profane material (and the case is not covered by 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)), the amount of any forfeiture 
     penalty determined under this section shall not exceed 
     $500,000 for each violation.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL FACTORS IN INDECENCY PENALTIES; EXCEPTION.

       Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is further amended by adding at the end 
     (after subparagraph (E) as redesignated by section 2(1) of 
     this Act) the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(F) In the case of a violation in which the violator is 
     determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to have 
     uttered obscene, indecent, or profane material, the 
     Commission shall take into account, in addition to the 
     matters described in subparagraph (E), the following factors:
       ``(i) With respect to the degree of culpability of the 
     violator, the following:
       ``(I) whether the material uttered by the violator was live 
     or recorded, scripted or unscripted;
       ``(II) whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to 
     review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable 
     basis to believe live or unscripted programming may contain 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material;
       ``(III) if the violator originated live or unscripted 
     programming, whether a time delay blocking mechanism was 
     implemented for the programming;
       ``(IV) the size of the viewing or listening audience of the 
     programming; and
       ``(V) whether the programming was part of a children's 
     television program as described in the Commission's 
     children's television programming policy (47 CFR 73.4050(c)).
       ``(ii) With respect to the violator's ability to pay, the 
     following:
       ``(I) whether the violator is a company or individual; and
       ``(II) if the violator is a company, the size of the 
     company and the size of the market served.
       ``(G) A broadcast station licensee or permittee that 
     receives programming from a network organization, but that is 
     not owned or controlled, or under common ownership or control 
     with, such network organization, shall not be subject to a 
     forfeiture penalty under this subsection for broadcasting 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material, if--
       ``(i) such material was within live or recorded programming 
     provided by the network organization to the licensee or 
     permittee; and
       ``(ii)(I) the programming was recorded or scripted, and the 
     licensee or permittee was not given a reasonable opportunity 
     to review the programming in advance; or--
       ``(II) the programming was live or unscripted, and the 
     licensee or permittee had no reasonable basis to believe the 
     programming would contain obscene, indecent, or profane 
     material.


[[Page H654]]


     The Commission shall by rule define the term `network 
     organization' for purposes of this subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 4. INDECENCY PENALTIES FOR NONLICENSEES.

       Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(5)'';
       (3) by redesignating the second sentence as subparagraph 
     (B);
       (4) in such subparagraph (B) as redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``The provisions of this paragraph shall 
     not apply, however,'' and inserting ``The provisions of 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply (i)'';
       (B) by striking ``operator, if the person'' and inserting 
     ``operator, (ii) if the person'';
       (C) by striking ``or in the case of'' and inserting ``(iii) 
     in the case of''; and
       (D) by inserting after ``that tower'' the following: ``, or 
     (iv) in the case of a determination that a person uttered 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material that was broadcast by 
     a broadcast station licensee or permittee, if the person is 
     determined to have willfully or intentionally made the 
     utterance''; and
       (5) by redesignating the last sentence as subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 5. DEADLINES FOR ACTION ON COMPLAINTS.

       Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     503(b)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) In the case of an allegation concerning the utterance 
     of obscene, indecent, or profane material that is broadcast 
     by a station licensee or permittee--
       ``(A) within 180 days after the date of the receipt of such 
     allegation, the Commission shall--
       ``(i) issue the required notice under paragraph (3) to such 
     licensee or permittee or the person making such utterance;
       ``(ii) issue a notice of apparent liability to such 
     licensee or permittee or person in accordance with paragraph 
     (4); or
       ``(iii) notify such licensee, permittee, or person in 
     writing, and any person submitting such allegation in writing 
     or by general publication, that the Commission has determined 
     not to issue either such notice; and
       ``(B) if the Commission issues such notice and such 
     licensee, permittee, or person has not paid a penalty or 
     entered into a settlement with the Commission, within 270 
     days after the date of the receipt of such allegation, the 
     Commission shall--
       ``(i) issue an order imposing a forfeiture penalty; or
       ``(ii) notify such licensee, permittee, or person in 
     writing, and any person submitting such allegation in writing 
     or by general publication, that the Commission has determined 
     not to issue either such order.''.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES FOR INDECENT BROADCAST.

       Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     503) is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Additional Remedies for Indecent Broadcasting.--In 
     any proceeding under this section in which the Commission 
     determines that any broadcast station licensee or permittee 
     has broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane material, the 
     Commission may, in addition to imposing a penalty under this 
     section, require the licensee or permittee to broadcast 
     public service announcements that serve the educational and 
     informational needs of children. Such announcements may be 
     required to reach an audience that is up to 5 times the size 
     of the audience that is estimated to have been reached by the 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material, as determined in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 7. LICENSE DISQUALIFICATION FOR VIOLATIONS OF INDECENCY 
                   PROHIBITIONS.

       Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     503) is further amended by adding at the end (after 
     subsection (c) as added by section 6) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Consideration of License Disqualification for 
     Violations of Indecency Prohibitions.--If the Commission 
     issues a notice under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b) 
     to a broadcast station licensee or permittee looking toward 
     the imposition of a forfeiture penalty under this Act based 
     on an allegation that the licensee or permittee broadcast 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material, and either--
       ``(1) such forfeiture penalty has been paid, or
       ``(2) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment 
     of such forfeiture penalty, and such order has become final,

     then the Commission shall, in any subsequent proceeding under 
     section 308(b) or 310(d), take into consideration whether the 
     broadcast of such material demonstrates a lack of character 
     or other qualifications required to operate a station.''.

     SEC. 8. LICENSE RENEWAL CONSIDERATION OF VIOLATIONS OF 
                   INDECENCY PROHIBITIONS.

       Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309(k)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) License renewal consideration of violations of 
     indecency prohibitions.--If the Commission has issued a 
     notice under paragraph (3) or (4) of section 503(b) to a 
     broadcast station licensee or permittee with respect to a 
     broadcast station looking toward the imposition of a 
     forfeiture penalty under this Act based on an allegation that 
     such broadcast station broadcast obscene, indecent, or 
     profane material, and--
       ``(A) such forfeiture penalty has been paid, or
       ``(B) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment 
     of such forfeiture penalty, and such order has become final,

     then such violation shall be treated as a serious violation 
     for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection with 
     respect to the renewal of the license or permit for such 
     station.''.

     SEC. 9. LICENSE REVOCATION FOR VIOLATIONS OF INDECENCY 
                   PROHIBITIONS.

       Section 312 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     312) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) License Revocation for Violations of Indecency 
     Prohibitions.--
       ``(1) Consequences of multiple violations.--If, in each of 
     3 or more proceedings during the term of any broadcast 
     license, the Commission issues a notice under paragraph (3) 
     or (4) of section 503(b) to a broadcast station licensee or 
     permittee with respect to a broadcast station looking toward 
     the imposition of a forfeiture penalty under this Act based 
     on an allegation that such broadcast station broadcast 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material, and in each such 
     proceeding either--
       ``(A) such forfeiture penalty has been paid, or
       ``(B) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment 
     of such forfeiture penalty, and such order has become final,

     then the Commission shall commence a proceeding under 
     subsection (a) of this section to consider whether the 
     Commission should revoke the station license or construction 
     permit of that licensee or permittee for such station.
       ``(2) Preservation of authority.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of the 
     Commission to commence a proceeding under subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 10. REQUIRED CONTENTS OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE 
                   COMMISSION.

       Each calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit 
     to the Congress an annual report that includes the following:
       (1) The number of complaints received by the Commission 
     during the year covered by the report alleging that a 
     broadcast contained obscene, indecent, or profane material, 
     and the number of programs to which such complaints relate.
       (2) The number of those complaints that have been dismissed 
     or denied by the Commission.
       (3) The number of complaints that have remained pending at 
     the end of the year covered by the annual report.
       (4) The number of notices issued by the Commission under 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of section 503(b) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)) during the year covered by the 
     report to enforce the statutes, rules, and policies 
     prohibiting the broadcasting of obscene, indecent, or profane 
     material.
       (5) For each such notice, a statement of--
       (A) the amount of the proposed forfeiture;
       (B) the program, station, and corporate parent to which the 
     notice was issued;
       (C) the length of time between the date on which the 
     complaint was filed and the date on which the notice was 
     issued; and
       (D) the status of the proceeding.
       (6) The number of forfeiture orders issued pursuant to 
     section 503(b) of such Act during the year covered by the 
     report to enforce the statutes, rules, and policies 
     prohibiting the broadcasting of obscene, indecent, or profane 
     material.
       (7) For each such forfeiture order, a statement of--
       (A) the amount assessed by the final forfeiture order;
       (B) the program, station, and corporate parent to which it 
     was issued;
       (C) whether the licensee has paid the forfeiture order; and
       (D) the amount paid by the licensee.
       (8) In instances where the licensee has refused to pay, 
     whether the Commission referred such order to the Department 
     of Justice to collect the penalty.
       (9) In cases where the Commission referred such order to 
     the Department of Justice--
       (A) the number of days from the date the Commission issued 
     such order to the date the Commission referred such order to 
     the Department;
       (B) whether the Department has commenced an action to 
     collect the penalty, and if such action was commenced, the 
     number of days from the date the Commission referred such 
     order to the Department to the date the action by the 
     Department commenced; and
       (C) whether the collection action resulted in a payment, 
     and if such action resulted in a payment, the amount of such 
     payment.

     SEC. 11. GAO STUDY OF INDECENT BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS.

       (a) Inquiry and Report Required.--The General Accounting 
     Office shall conduct a study examining--
       (1) the number of complaints concerning the broadcasting of 
     obscene, indecent, and profane material to the Federal 
     Communications Commission;
       (2) the number of such complaints that result in final 
     agency actions by the Commission;

[[Page H655]]

       (3) the length of time taken by the Commission in 
     responding to such complaints;
       (4) what mechanisms the Commission has established to 
     receive, investigate, and respond to such complaints; and
       (5) whether complainants to the Commission are adequately 
     informed by the Commission of the responses to their 
     complaints.
       (b) Submission of Report.--The General Accounting Office 
     shall submit a report on the results of such study within one 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       (a) Reinstatement of Policy.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that the broadcast television station licensees 
     should reinstitute a family viewing policy for broadcasters.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, a family 
     viewing policy is a policy similar to the policy that existed 
     in the United States from 1975 to 1983, as part of the 
     National Association of Broadcaster's code of conduct for 
     television, and that included the concept of a family viewing 
     hour.

     SEC. 13. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations to implement the amendments made by this Act 
     within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Prospective Application.--This Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act shall not apply with respect to material 
     broadcast before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Separability.--Section 708 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 608) shall apply to this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment without demand for division of the 
question printed in House Report 109-6 if offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), or his designee, which shall be considered read, 
and shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes of debate on 
the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 310.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Energy and Commerce Committee brings its first 
major bill of the 109th Congress to the floor, H.R. 310, the Broadcast 
Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.
  This is a bill that we brought up in the last Congress and passed in 
the last Congress, but were not able to conference successfully with 
the Senate. We passed it in the last Congress with a vote of 391 to 22, 
so we are going to bring this up as our first major bill this year.
  This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families 
to come back again into their living rooms. After the year-before-last 
Super Bowl half-time show, an unprecedented 500,000 citizens filed 
complaints with the FCC, 500,000. The level of disgust in the use of 
our public airwaves was then at an all-time high. The 2004 Super Bowl 
crystallized the notion that something needs to be done. Today, we are 
going to answer those calls.
  H.R. 310 gives the FCC all of the tools necessary to encourage 
broadcasters to take these fines seriously. For too long, broadcasters 
have pushed the envelope. In light of the paltry fines under current 
law, broadcasters have been willing to take the risk that programming 
may be deemed indecent. Currently, the most the FCC may fine a 
broadcaster is $32,500. It is a mere drop in the bucket, a slap on the 
wrist. This bill would raise the stakes by giving the FCC the ability 
to fine a maximum of $500,000 for an indecent broadcast infraction. A 
$500,000 penalty gets people's attention.
  The bill also takes the additional step to address the performers who 
may exploit the airwaves to promote their own popularity. Under H.R. 
310, if a performer, and I quote, ``willfully and intentionally makes 
an indecent statement or action that he or she knows will be broadcast, 
that performer can be held personally liable for up to $500,000.'' 
There is a clear need to hold a performer responsible for his or her 
own actions, and this bill does that in a reasonable manner.
  The goal is not to bankrupt anyone, but rather make the penalties do 
what they are supposed to do, provide a disincentive to utter indecent 
material on broadcast television and radio.
  Additionally, H.R. 310 would allow the FCC to use remedies other than 
fines. For instance, if a broadcaster is found liable for three 
separate indecency violations during an 8-year license term, the bill 
requires the FCC to hold a revocation hearing to consider revoking the 
broadcaster's license. It is not an automatic revocation, but the FCC 
would have to hold the hearing to consider revocation.
  Today, the FCC has the power to hold a license revocation hearing 
only after one indecency offense, but rarely uses it. H.R. 310 would 
make it clear that after three such offenses, it is time to examine the 
license. Again, this is a penalty that will make the broadcasters sit 
up and take notice.

                              {time}  1245

  I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet; 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the 
full committee; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, for their hard work on this bill. 
It is a good bill. It is firm, it is fair, and it is reasonable. Most 
importantly and unfortunately, it is necessary. I am an original 
cosponsor of H.R. 310. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), and I ask unanimous consent for him to control 
the floor debate on the majority time on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton) for this legislation and commend as well the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 
members of the committee on both the Democrat and Republican side who 
have crafted this bill. It has been handled in a bipartisan fashion. 
This bill is brought to the floor today in that spirit.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is essentially identical to the bill 
which overwhelmingly passed the House in the last Congress. Simply put, 
this bill raises the cap on possible fines that the FCC can levy for 
violations of its broadcast indecency rules from $32,500 for licensees 
and $11,000 for nonlicensees to up to $500,000 in both categories.
  I would like to emphasize that this legislation does not make 
indecent broadcasts illegal, nor does the bill define what is or is not 
indecent material.
  Indecent content aired over broadcast TV and radio is already illegal 
between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., 7 days a week. What speech 
constitutes indecent material will be left to the Federal 
Communications Commission and to the courts of the United States of 
America.
  Again, this legislation simply updates the statute with regard to the 
amount of money that the FCC can levy as a fine for violations of its 
rules and establishes procedures for considering broadcast license 
awards, renewal or revocation when repeated violations are found.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to 
particularly thank a number of Members. I want to thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton). Without his dedicated effort, we would not 
have this bill through the fast track that we have it today, and his 
support means quite a bit. I also want to thank my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. I look at the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), my ranking member on the subcommittee; the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who is on the floor, the ranking member of the 
full committee. This is a bipartisan effort.

[[Page H656]]

  I would remind my colleagues that last year this legislation passed 
391-22. Out of our committee this last week, it passed 46-2. That is 
true bipartisan spirit and we are delighted that it is up on the floor 
as early as it is. A little bit more than a year ago, I introduced 
similar legislation that had all five FCC commissioners, Republican and 
Democrat, on board. Each of them had lamented in a very public way that 
the current level of fines was way too low, and with that we moved the 
legislation that we introduced a couple of weeks ago. We passed it, as 
I said, 391-22. The Senate passed similar legislation last year, 99-1. 
I would note that that one that voted against it wanted the bill to be 
tougher. In essence, unanimous support.
  Currently, fines for indecency often go uncollected because the cost 
for the Department of Justice to collect the fines is often greater 
than the fines themselves. This is no longer going to be the case under 
H.R. 310. The current cap for fines is $32,500. To put that into 
perspective, a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl just a couple of 
weeks ago cost $80,000 a second, $2.4 million for 30 seconds.
  What we are talking about today is about the public airwaves which 
are, of course, owned by the U.S. taxpayer. Using the public airwaves 
comes with the responsibility to follow the FCC decency standards that 
apply to programming that airs during the family hours from 6 in the 
morning until 10 at night, the likeliest time that kids might be tuned 
in.
  When broadcasters sign on the dotted line to receive their licenses, 
they agree to follow those decency standards, and I would note that the 
courts, including the highest in the land, ruled in support of that 
standard. There has to be a level of expectation when a parent turns on 
the TV or the radio between those family hours that the content will be 
suitable for children. A parent should not have to think twice about 
the content on public airwaves. Unfortunately, the situation is far 
from reality.
  I would note very strongly that we do not change the standard in this 
legislation. We raise the fines. I have asked for the FCC to look for 
the transcripts of what they have fined. I am not going to put this in 
the Record under unanimous consent or any other, but I will tell any 
Member that is here or watching on the floor, if you want to see what 
the FCC has fined, I have got the transcript here and it is awful, it 
is vulgar, it has no place on the public airwaves, and I would defy 
anyone to come over and look at the reading of these transcripts and 
say that should not be banned. It should be. And broadcasters who 
violate the standard ought to be fined and it ought to be more than a 
slap on the wrist, and that is exactly what this legislation does.
  By significantly increasing the fines for indecency, the fines will 
be at a level where they no longer are going to be ignored and parents 
across the country can rest easy. With the passage of this legislation 
I am confident that broadcasters will think twice and, by the way, the 
talent themselves as well, the disk jockeys or anybody else, will think 
twice about pushing that envelope because they are going to be liable 
as well, and ultimately our kids are going to be better off for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 310, the Broadcast 
Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. At the outset, I want to thank 
Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, and Mr. Markey for their 
tremendous bipartisan cooperation on this bill. I also want to thank 
those Members of the House who have cosponsored the bill.
  I would tell my colleagues that H.R. 310 mirrors the bill which, last 
year, the House passed by a vote of 391-22.
  For the record, we introduced this bill last year weeks before the 
infamous Super Bowl halftime show featuring Janet Jackson and Justin 
Timberlake. I was motivated to introduce this bill in large part 
because I read the transcripts of those broadcasts which the FCC found 
to contain indecent content. When I read some of those transcripts, I 
was absolutely sickened and shocked by the filth which had passed over 
the public's airwaves. Today, I have with me every broadcast indecency 
Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture Order issued by the FCC 
since 2000. Each order contains a transcript of the offending content. 
If any Member is uncertain about the merit of what we are doing here 
today, I would urge them to read these transcripts. I am confident that 
you will be as sickened as I am.
  This legislation would significantly enhance the Federal 
Communications Commission's broadcast decency enforcement authority. As 
stewards of the public's airwaves, radio and television broadcasters 
have an obligation to abide by the decency laws which have been on the 
books for decades and have been upheld in the courts. Most of our local 
broadcasters act responsibly, but there are still too many who continue 
to push the envelope of indecency during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 
p.m., when children are most likely to be in the audience. I would note 
that some broadcasters have taken to heart the seriousness of this 
debate and, on their own, have adopted internal policies to better 
control what goes over the public's airwaves over which they have 
stewardship. Clear Channel's ``zero tolerance'' policy as part of its 
``Responsible Broadcast Initiative'' is one such example of this good 
corporate citizenship.
  But for those broadcasters who continue to act irresponsibly, the FCC 
needs adequate authority to enforce the law, and this bill would 
deliver that.
  Currently, the maximum fine which the FCC can impose for violations 
of the decency laws is $32,500 per violation, which, to some 
broadcasters, is merely the ``cost of doing business'' and, as such, is 
hardly a deterrent. H.R. 310 would increase the maximum fine to 
$500,000 per violation.
  In addition, under current law, the FCC may hold a license revocation 
hearing for any broadcaster who is found liable for an indecency 
violation. However, the FCC has never held such a license revocation 
hearing. H.R. 310, among other things, would require the FCC to hold a 
license revocation hearing for any broadcaster who has been found 
liable for three indecency violations; this is the so-called ``three 
strikes'' provision. Importantly, in order for a ``strike'' to count 
toward the three strikes triggering a license revocation hearing under 
the bill, each finding of liability must have gone through an 
exhaustive legal process--all the way to final judgment. This is an 
important element to protect broadcasters' legitimate due process 
rights. Also, it is important to note that this provision does not 
require the FCC to revoke the license of a broadcaster after the third 
strike, it merely requires a hearing to consider the matter with no 
prejudice toward the outcome of such hearing. Of course, under current 
law, the FCC can hold a license revocation hearing after the first 
strike, second strike, or third strike, so all this provision does is 
require, at a minimum, that such a hearing is held after the third 
strike.
  Other provisions in the bill would:
  Ensure that the FCC, when setting penalties, takes into consideration 
the degree of culpability of the violator, whether the violator is a 
company or individual, and if it is a company, the size of the company 
and market served.
  Permit the FCC to fine an individual on the first indecency offense.
  Require the FCC to complete action on indecency complaints within 180 
days.
  Force the FCC to take indecency violations into account during 
license application, renewal and modifications, and
  Compel the FCC to report to Congress annually regarding the agency's 
broadcast decency enforcement activities.
  This bill significantly strengthens the FCC's enforcement authority, 
but does not change the underlying broadcast indecency standard which 
has withstood judicial scrutiny throughout the decades. Later in this 
debate, I, along with my colleague Ed Markey, will be offering a 
bipartisan manager's amendment, which makes some non-controversial 
changes to the bill, in large part clarifying our intent in a number of 
areas. But for now, I will simply close by urging my colleagues to 
support the bill and the manager's amendment which will be offered to 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record the 
statement of administration policy from the administration in support 
of this legislation.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2005.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  h.r. 310--broadcast decency enforcement act of 2005 (rep. upton (r) 
                      michigan and 56 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     310. This will make broadcast television and radio more 
     suitable for family viewing by giving the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to impose 
     stiffer penalties on broadcasters that air obscene or 
     indecent material over the public airwaves. In particular, 
     the Administration applauds the inclusion in the bill of its 
     proposal to require that the FCC consider whether 
     inappropriate material has been aired during children's 
     television programming in determining the fine to be imposed 
     for violations of the law. The Administration looks forward 
     to continuing to work with the Congress to make appropriate 
     adjustments to the language of the bill as it moves through 
     the legislative process.


[[Page H657]]


  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Act. While I 
acknowledge and appreciate that this is a bipartisan effort in bringing 
this bill, I believe that this attempt to address the quality of 
broadcasting is both overreaching and off the mark and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this bill.
  There is already a law on the books that addresses indecency, and my 
view is that we need to get a grip and not embrace a solution that 
could cause more harm than good. I believe that H.R. 310 is one of 
those solutions.
  H.R. 310 would essentially in my view put Big Brother in charge of 
deciding what is art and what is free speech. If enacted, especially 
with the increased fines against individual artists, we will see self- 
and actual censorship reach new and undesirable heights. Even the 
threat of this legislation has already led to that kind of censorship.
  For instance, on Veterans Day of 2001 and 2002, ABC aired ``Saving 
Private Ryan,'' a movie about World War II, to honor those who served. 
In 2004, with the threat of almost identical legislation to the one we 
are considering hanging over their heads, 66 ABC affiliates refused to 
run the show. They were afraid that the award-winning salute to our 
veterans would be deemed indecent. They were concerned that it might 
trigger at least one incident, maybe three, of indecency because it is 
unclear whether saying one indecent word three times in the same 
broadcast might trigger license revocation proceedings.
  As we can see, the threats to our Constitution and to artistic 
expression are all too real with H.R. 310. Do we not want to have 
sensational performances, sensational in the best sense of the word? Do 
we want a blanding down? Once we do this kind of censorship, can 
political speech be far behind?
  I am concerned about the continual refusal to address what I believe 
is really behind the decline in broadcasting and that is the 
overconcentration of media ownership. Broadcasting content has been 
getting worse, not because of low fines and out-of-control talent, but 
because of the shift away from local control to ownership by media 
conglomerates that have no regard for the varying community standards.
  Additionally, much of the furor over indecency has been explained by 
a desire to protect our children. And there are many programs on TV 
that I believe are inappropriate for my little grandchildren, 
particularly the many which depict graphic violence over and over and 
over again. But I do not want H.R. 310 or Big Brother making that 
decision for me or their parents.
  If I could just say that I happen to be much more concerned about the 
first amendment than I am about my grandchildren seeing Janet Jackson's 
nipple. I would say, let us get a grip and we can do without this 
legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the subcommittee and a cosponsor of 
the legislation.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding me this time. I think it is appropriate that 
I speak after the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) spoke in 
opposing the bill, because I support the bill. There is going to be 
opposition from a few people. They are going to complain that this bill 
is arbitrary; that the fine on individuals, which is $500,000, is too 
much, too expensive.
  But I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) have reached the right balance on this bill, 
so let us talk a little bit about it. It is not arbitrary. There is a 
lot of flexibility involved. It is not unfair or excessive.
  We establish a separate standard for individuals above and beyond how 
we deal with licensees so that we can go that extra mile to protect 
their first amendment rights.
  We should note that the penalty is up to $500,000. That means that 
the FCC has the discretion to fine much lower if it needs to. We all 
know that Janet Jackson is a person who can afford these fines, but if 
a local small-time entertainer violates our decency laws, the FCC can 
take into consideration that fact and that these individuals cannot 
afford $500,000. So maybe they will issue something like $5,000 or 
$10,000 or $25,000, still stiff enough to punish them for violating our 
laws and maybe enough to dissuade them from doing it again. In fact, 
the FCC has the discretion to fine them $1 if they see fit. So there is 
a lot of flexibility.
  In order to be penalized under this legislation, the individual must 
have a willful and intentional profanity in order to be penalized. This 
means that individuals have to act deliberately and consciously knowing 
that their indecent comments will be broadcast. In other words, if an 
entertainer is unaware that they are on camera and that they are 
profane, they would not be held responsible for this.
  The FCC can also check the list of aggravating factors that were 
established and then in turn determine the fine accordingly. The FCC 
will have to look at whether the comments were scripted or unscripted 
or live or recorded.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonably balanced bill that backs our 
decency standards, I think, with force. For too long, the penalties 
associated with our decency laws were considered just a cost of doing 
business. That is simply what they were. We will now have the potential 
to have individuals put their money where their mouth is. I urge my 
colleagues to support this language, support this bill and pass it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is a dangerous bill. I get a 
little bit tired of people in Congress talking about freedom, freedom, 
freedom. But apparently they do not want to give the American people 
the freedom to make the decisions with regard to what radio and 
television programs they can watch or hear.
  I am not a conservative, but let me quote from an honest conservative 
who does not want government regulating what the American people see 
and hear. This is a gentleman from the Cato Institute, Mr. Adam 
Thierer:
  ``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.

                              {time}  1300

  ``Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I 
take great offense at the notion that government officials must 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.'' Cato Institute. Honest conservatives.
  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 my agreeing to what one says; it is my agreeing that they 
have the right to say it. That is what we fought for.
  I am particularly outraged when I read in Reuters on December 13, 
``Sixty-six ABC affiliates refused to air the uncut movie on Veterans 
Day last month'' of ``Saving Private Ryan,'' ``citing concerns they 
could face fines for profanity and graphic violence from the FCC.''
  The men who fought in World War II against Hitler, who gave their 
lives on D-Day, we cannot see that film because ABC is afraid to show 
us, and that is under the old rules.
  In addition to the self-censorship imposed by ABC on ``Saving Private 
Ryan,'' there is more. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a 
political advertisement, paid political advertisement, during the Super 
Bowl by

[[Page H658]]

MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in creating the 
Federal deficit. They could not pay to get an ad on because CBS was 
nervous. 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 into their church. They were afraid to run that. And just last 
month many PBS stations refused to air an episode of ``Postcards with 
Buster'' because they showed a lesbian couple.
  In other words, this legislation cannot be taken out of context with 
the overall move towards censorship which is taking place in this 
country. And I would hope that my conservative friends who get up here 
every day talking about government regulators, get those government 
regulators off the backs of the people, I hope they will remember their 
rhetoric today. Let us not have a handful of government bureaucrats 
telling radio and TV stations and the American people what they can see 
and hear.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would just remind my friend in the well that the FCC specifically 
dismissed complaints against ``Saving Private Ryan,'' and with regards 
to the ad that was trying to be run by United Church of Christ, that 
was a first amendment right that the station made themselves. I do not 
think anyone thought that the FCC would fine them for the airing of 
that commercial.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan raises an important 
point about ABC, not a small company. They self-censored themselves. He 
is right. He is absolutely right. The FCC said that they would not fine 
them, and yet 66 affiliates said, We are still nervous. ABC, not a 
small station. In my State we have got small stations who are very 
nervous. The issue here, and the gentleman just really said it, is 
self-censorship.
  Is he happy about the fact that affiliates are afraid of showing 
``Saving Private Ryan''?
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the FCC said they were 
not going to fine them.
  Mr. SANDERS. But they did not, Mr. Speaker. ABC affiliates took it 
off the air. Is the gentleman happy? Does he think that is good?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Vermont's (Mr. Sanders) time has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the subcommittee, who is very 
active on this issue, a co-sponsor.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for moving this important 
legislation so early in the session.
  This is not a new issue. But parents have been pleading with us to 
take action on this for years.
  Mr. Speaker, studies show that children are impacted by what they 
watch on television. A study last year released by Rand shows that 
children pick up sexual attitudes and behaviors from television 
programs, and we know that children are very impressionable; and to 
allow broadcasters to circumvent the role of parents in teaching their 
children right from wrong when it comes to sexuality, violence, and 
profanity is wrong; and not to act is to do just that.
  Our decency laws are based on our view that society is partly 
responsible for making sure public airwaves are filled with safe 
material, and programs depicting profanity, sexuality, and violence 
influence how kids act and see the world; and that is why we have 
adopted decency standards that have withstood legal challenge and the 
test of time.
  This bill updates the penalties for violating those standards. For 
too long government has allowed broadcasters to profit from the use of 
public airwaves with little or no public accountability. We have in 
effect abandoned American families in doing that. H.R. 310 sends a 
clear message to the entertainment industry that we are no longer going 
to idly stand by and force our parents to put up with this unacceptable 
programming. H.R. 310 reaffirms our commitment to ensure safe 
programming for children.
  Mr. Speaker, families are tired of worrying about what their children 
may hear and see every time they turn on television. They are 
frustrated that the media industry has seemingly been able to broadcast 
any type of behavior or speech that they feel will bring in advertising 
dollars. Meanwhile, they feel that the Federal Government has sided 
with the media elites and turned a blind eye to the concerns of 
ordinary moms and dads. So finally Congress has heard. We are acting 
for American families. We are not going to stand idly by on this topic.
  I urge support for the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called 
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. It increases the power of government 
to censor programming that some might consider indecent and others 
might not. We are already seeing the corrosive effect of this 
legislation on free speech as broadcasters anticipate its enactment. 
Faced with the potentially ruinous fines and the loss of their 
licenses, broadcasters have begun to self-censor even permissible 
speech.
  Last Veterans Day, 65 ABC affiliates declined to air ``Saving Private 
Ryan'' in response to an organization's campaign against it even though 
the movie had aired two previous years without any indecency complaints 
from the public. And the Federal Communications Commission has provided 
no constructive guidance to broadcasters. It is creating greater 
confusion by applying an already-vague indecency standard in an 
inconsistent and arbitrary manner.
  No one knows when one person's creative work will become a violation 
of another person's definition of decency. Creative works that tackle 
challenging themes that are controversial but important are threatened 
by this legislation. Everything is objectionable to someone. A few 
years ago one of our colleagues took to the House floor to condemn the 
broadcast of the Oscar award-winning film ``Schindler's List.'' He was 
outraged that scenes portraying Holocaust victims contained some 
nudity. Legislation such as this can lead us to these kinds of absurd 
results. Let us trust parents to know better than government officials 
what material they want their children to be exposed to. And let us 
have adults be able to watch television programming that is not so 
watered down, that the only thing we will see on television is suitable 
for a 5-year-old whose parents are prudes.
  I reject this legislation. I plan to vote against it, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), again a cosponsor of the legislation, very 
active in pursuing its goal today.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I am a parent of a 5-year-old and I am a 
prude; so I guess I meet the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) 
definition.
  Willfully and intentionally, the use of public airwaves for indecent 
material or conduct, that is what we are addressing today. And I want 
to congratulate the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member; the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), ranking member; and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for their good work. It is not 
easy, because we hear the debate, but it is very important.
  The outcry of the Nation has been finally heard. This was the number 
one issue that my office was contacted on in the whole last Congress. 
Nothing raised the ire of the people in my district more than the 
indecent use of the public airwaves, and finally we are doing something 
about it.
  But I do not want to lull the public into a false sense of security, 
because this is addressing only one venue, the public airwaves, the 
people of the broadcast communities free over-the-air TV, which is now 
a minority of the use of how people receive TV shows in their home. By 
far most people receive it through cable, direct satellite, we

[[Page H659]]

are going to have cellular, it is over broadband. And do my colleagues 
know what this does to those venues? Nothing. Maybe it will exclude 
those broadcasters in their ability, but these other venues are still 
going to be held free, and I think that creates an unfair playing 
field, and I am concerned.
  The local broadcasters in most of our districts do a fair and upright 
job. They understand the problem that the big broadcasters have imposed 
upon them. They are willing to accept these stringent standards and 
tighten their belts for the good of the public. But they are not going 
to be able to compete with billions of channels, with other types of 
broadcasters who are going to get away scot-free.
  So I applaud the bill. I am excited about it. I lament the fact that 
it does not go far enough.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on 
this issue. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 
his work on this important legislation. It is a pleasure to serve on 
the subcommittee, and I look forward to continued work in this 
Congress.
  As a father of four young children, I am glad to see that the 
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act has once again come to the House 
floor and it is on its way to passage and signature by President Bush. 
While I ultimately believe that it is parents' responsibility to 
closely monitor what their children watch on television, it is 
difficult even for conscientious parents when programs that feature 
explicit language or other subject matter are shown during times when 
children are commonly watching television.
  Often, parents are in the position of having to be reactive, hoping 
that children will not fall victim to offensive images and words on 
their TVs. Congress must act to ensure that the FCC has the tools that 
it needs to prevent offensive images in our living rooms, and I believe 
we have done so with this bill and this legislation.
  It has been fueled by bipartisan desire to ensure that broadcasters 
take responsibility for what is transmitted over their airwaves. It is 
timely and it is completely appropriate considering what the American 
public and our families have witnessed recently over our airwaves. We 
have seen the public airwaves turned into a race to the bottom. Who can 
be more offensive? Who can be more vulgar? Who can push the envelope a 
little further than the next guy? Who can do whatever they can to 
create a stir and to draw increased ratings by creating a buzz in our 
society?
  Do we not have something better to offer to American families and 
American children? It is difficult to argue that our society and our 
culture has not become more coarsened over the course of the last few 
decades. Let us try to stop the coarsening of our culture. Let us try 
to offer our families and our children something better, something more 
healthy, something more wholesome.
  Can we not do better? I think we can. And I think it can begin by 
passing this legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues we are 
not changing the standard; we are simply raising the fines on the 
existing standard. This is not about ``Saving Private Ryan.'' Those 
charges were dismissed some time ago. It has aired a number of times.
  But it is about what some Members have looked at, the transcripts 
from broadcasts that have been fined, and I would dare to say that 
there is not a Member of this body who wants some of this filth to ever 
be said or broadcast again. That is what this legislation is intended 
to stop, so that when we are listening to the radio or watching TV, 
particularly with our kids, that they are not going to be exposed to 
stuff that has been on the books for decades and the courts have 
affirmed.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support for H.R. 310, the Broadcasting Decency Enforcement Act. While 
the House passed this bill last year by an overwhelming majority, 
unfortunately it did not become law. As a result, the House must 
reconsider this issue.
  During my service in Congress, this is one of the top two issues my 
constituents have mentioned in their e-mails, phone calls and letters. 
My constituents are telling me that enough is enough. When broadcasters 
violate indecency rules and a complaint is filed, my constituents want 
it to be taken seriously by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. 
They want meaningful penalties that will make broadcasters think twice 
before airing objectionable programs. They want broadcasters to be held 
accountable.
  Above all, they want to be able to watch an entertainment program 
with their families without having them exposed to content unsuitable 
for children. When supposedly family-friendly programming such as the 
Super Bowl becomes a program many families don't want their children to 
see, we have a problem. As a grandfather, I worry about being able to 
turn on the TV and watch a program or sports event with my 3- and 5-
year-old grandsons.
  The bill before us today increases penalties for broadcasters and 
performers who violate decency standards over the airwaves. Raising the 
cap on fines to $500,000 for broadcasts that violate the rules helps 
show that Congress and the FCC are serious about punishing offenses. 
The current cap is only $27,000 per violation, a drop in the bucket for 
most broadcasters. When broadcasters know that indecency violations 
will be taken into consideration when they ask the FCC to renew their 
broadcast licenses, they are going to take additional precautions to 
prevent instances of indecency. If a broadcaster accumulates three 
violations, a hearing will be triggered to review revoking that 
station's license.
  This legislation sends a strong signal that Congress is serious about 
enforcement of broadcast indecency regulations. If all Members, 
constituents care about this issue as much as mine do, then this should 
be an easy bill for us to support.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act (H.R. 310).
  Like many Americans, I have been personally offended by the crudeness 
and licentiousness of some material that has made its way on the public 
airwaves. Television and radio networks that benefit from free use of 
the public airwaves have a responsibility to refrain from airing 
obscene material. Likewise, licensees must refrain from airing 
programming that is indecent or profane during normal family viewing 
hours. Parents should not be forced to dive for the remote control in 
order to protect their children from material that they are too young 
to see or hear.
  Since 1978, the Federal Communications Commission has had the 
authority to ``impose sanctions on licensees who engage in obscene, 
indecent, or profane broadcasting.'' Under current law, the maximum 
amount that a network can be fined for airing such content is $27,500. 
For huge broadcasting companies that reap billions in advertising 
revenue each year, this sum is an insufficient deterrent from breaking 
the law.
  I am happy to see that this legislation does not change existing law 
regarding the standards by which television or radio programming is 
judged to be indecent, profane, or obscene. I am wary of the Federal 
Government overstepping its boundaries by becoming a kind of moral 
police. This legislation merely bolsters the ability of the FCC to levy 
appropriate punitive actions against networks that flagrantly violate 
the law.
  I am disappointed that Congress has declined to use this occasion to 
address an equally important issue in broadcasting--diversity of 
viewpoints. Until 1985, broadcasters benefiting from use of the public 
airwaves had a responsibility to demonstrate that their programming 
presented multiple viewpoints on issues of public interest. The repeal 
of the Fairness Doctrine by the Reagan administration has hurt the 
objectivity of the media and the breadth of opinions that the public 
gets to hear. Americans deserve better than propaganda masquerading as 
news journalism.
  Though I intend to vote in favor of this legislation, the situation 
in which Congress finds itself is hardly ideal. Any time the Federal 
Government is forced by circumstances to strengthen limitations on the 
media, it must act with extreme caution at the risk of violating this 
country's most essential freedoms. It would be best if broadcasters 
would voluntarily adhere to high standards of decency with regard to 
the public airwaves. If broadcasters demonstrated the willingness and 
capacity to regulate themselves, this legislation would not be 
necessary. Unfortunately, some television and radio broadcasters have 
chosen to violate decency standards, judging that the ratings boon 
would be worth any fines that a violation would inevitably generate.
  It is my hope that the FCC will not be forced to use the authority 
that this legislation grants.

[[Page H660]]

I hope that passage of this legislation will provide an adequate 
deterrent to ensure that television and radio programming on public 
airwaves reflects public values. I support H.R. 310, imperfect though 
it may be.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year since the infamous 
Super Bowl incident where a supposed ``wardrobe malfunction'' set this 
Nation spinning backwards wondering why our children were exposed to a 
misogynistic display of public nudity during a football game. The 
provocative dancing, and sexual lyrics were a far cry from an afternoon 
watching a football game. While I have the utmost respect for artists 
and their artistic expressions, I am also a mother of two children and 
last year the line between acceptable and unacceptable was crossed on 
national television.
  Hollywood has long been about us pushing the borders of artistic 
expression and pushing the limits. I was married to an entertainer and 
I have a family, an extended family, who are still in this business and 
we know that this is about pushing the envelope. The American people 
have finally said ``enough'' you've pushed too far--and the truth is, 
corporate profit is increasingly becoming the bottom line. This is what 
this is about at the end of the day. Janet Jackson, as I understand, 
came out with a new album shortly after this tasteless stunt--surprise, 
surprise.
  I have always supported artists, and want to protect their ability to 
express themselves and protect them against unfair legislation. 
Recently, I entered into a colloquy with Chairman Barton and he assured 
me that artists have a means test where their intent and ability to pay 
a fine is taken into consideration under the current Communications 
Act. Also, the chairman assured me that the $500,000 fine is merely a 
cap and that there is discretion based upon certain factors so a 
violation is not automatically going to cost an artist that amount of 
money. Furthermore, an artist is not likely to be fined for a 
broadcaster placing their recorded performance on the air unless they 
had knowledge that it would be played or that they intended for that 
performance to be played on the public airwaves. Such an example 
demonstrates that an artist would have to be involved in the process 
with a broadcaster in order to be found in violation of this bill. 
Lastly, this bill implements the ability to pay test so that both 
licensees and nonlicensees ability to pay fines will be taken into 
consideration.
  I would like to personally thank the Creative Coalition and the 
Grammy Foundation for their attention to these issues and bringing them 
to the forefront. I hope that their specific concerns with these 
provisions have been addressed and that they feel comfortable with the 
intentions of this bill. I look forward to working with both groups in 
the future and will continue to support artist's rights as they pertain 
to these issues. There is a difference between protecting artists and 
upholding laws and standards on our public airwaves and I believe this 
bill strikes the right balance.
  While there has been an outcry from some members of the public 
suggesting that this was not a big deal, the vote on this bill last 
year tells a different story. This bill was voted out of the House of 
Representatives last year by a vote of 399-22. That type of bipartisan 
support demonstrates the outrage that each Member felt and what each 
Member heard from their constituents. Entertainers, producers and the 
corporate giants pushing profits have pushed the envelope too far and 
are seeing the backlash from Congress, public officials, and concerned 
parents and constituents. Something had to be done to scale back this 
type of behavior and this bill accomplishes that goal.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, it's been about a year since we last debated 
broadcast indecency before the House. I was pleased to have supported 
the passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act then, and I look 
forward to its passage again this year.
  Sometimes it takes a couple of swings of the bat before we can get a 
hit and enact a bill into law. That's why I want to recognize Chairman 
Upton and Chairman Barton for sticking to their guns on this bill and 
bringing it before the House so promptly this year. Hopefully this 
time, the other body will choose to debate and pass this bill, so it 
can become the law of the land.
  Many have come to the floor to explain what the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act will do. But, instead of rehashing the nuts and bolts 
of this bill, I would rather discuss how it will improve the airwaves. 
No one questions that there is an increasing coarseness in broadcast 
media. And by increasing fines so they will actually act as a 
deterrent, instead of a slap on the wrist, I am confident we will see 
real results. In fact, since this bill was first introduced in the last 
Congress, people have actually been more conscientious about what they 
send over the airwaves, and the FCC has been more active in penalizing 
those who have violated the standard. Passing this bill will lock that 
in, and serve as a benchmark in an improving broadcast medium.
  I also want to urge passage of the manager's amendment that 
incorporates an amendment that I proposed to the bill. My amendment 
will ensure that the FCC regularly updates its Industry Guidance 
Regarding Broadcast Decency document, which was last updated April 6, 
2001. This document helps illustrate precedents to FCC licensees, and I 
imagine it is required reading for anyone who is affected by the 
increase in indecency fines. Since we are increasing the fines in this 
bill, it only seems right to ensure there are clear guidelines.
  My amendment will make certain these guidelines are contemporary, and 
I want to thank Chairman Upton for working with me to incorporate the 
Cubin language into his amendment.
  I urge passage of H.R. 310, and the manager's amendment.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, like many of my 
colleagues, last year, I received hundreds of calls from angered 
constituents after the obscene display at the Super Bowl.
  What was most frustrating was that I had to explain that the FCC's 
hands were tied; the FCC wanted to punish the broadcasters who allowed 
this material to be displayed before our children during prime time, 
but they could not.
  A $27,500 fine does nothing to deter networks that generate billions 
of dollars in revenue.
  Today, however, I can tell my constituents that I voted in favor of 
the Broadcast Decency Act.
  Introduced by my colleague, Representative Upton, this bill increases 
the slap on the wrist in penalties to a fair punishment of $500,000 for 
broadcasters who break the rules.
  Freedom of speech should be protected but not at the cost of our 
children who simply want to catch a football game.
  I look forward to voting in favor of this bill and thank 
Representative Upton for his efforts.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 310, a bill 
that would increase the fines the Federal Communications Commission can 
impose for the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane material.
  The level of violent and sexual content in all forms of media has 
reached a point where Congress has no choice but to act.
  The proliferation of indecent content in the media continues not only 
through television and movies but also through video games and the 
Internet--mediums that our children now have easier access to. A 
growing body of evidence suggests that these messages can be harmful to 
a child's development.
  As Democrats and Republicans we must continue to work together to 
address these issues. That is the only way we will be able prevent our 
children from being needlessly exposed to violent and sexual content.
  The failure of the FCC to adequately scrutinize Spanish-language 
radio broadcasts for indecent content has been particularly troubling. 
In the last decade alone, the number of Spanish-language outlets in 
television and radio nationwide has nearly doubled. With this growth 
comes an increasing necessity to improve the FCC's ability to enforce 
its decency standards in an increasingly diverse market place. The 
Spanish-speaking community is no less deserving of protection from 
blatant indecency than other audiences.
  As the co-chair of the Congressional Sex and Violence in the Media 
Caucus with my friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Osborne, I believe 
that we must prevent violence by and against children through 
legislation, education, outreach and advocacy.
  I hope that other Members of Congress and the public will continue to 
work to protect our children from obscene and inappropriate media.
  I commend Congressman Upton and Congressman Markey for their 
sponsorship of this bill and support its passage.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 310, the 
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.
  I commend my full committee and subcommittee chairmen, 
Representatives Barton and Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Markey for their work and efforts to bring this ever-improving bill to 
the House floor so quickly. H.R. 310 is strong, bipartisan legislation 
worthy of support. This legislation is nearly identical to the bill 
passed by the House almost 1 year ago by a vote of 391 to 22. That bill 
failed to become law.
  The need for this legislation, however, has not diminished in the 
past year. For too long, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, 
has been asleep at the wheel when it came to incidents of public 
broadcast indecency and the ensuing complaints. Congress's attention to 
the issue of broadcast indecency last year awakened the commission from 
its years of slumber. We finally saw an FCC that more properly 
understood the need to enforce laws against indecency over the public 
airwaves.

[[Page H661]]

  Unfortunately, consumer complaints continue to receive haphazard 
treatment at the commission. Moreover, there continues to be a betrayal 
of the public trust. Some broadcasters persist in crossing the line, 
putting their own drive for ratings and profits ahead of their 
responsibilities to the public. This is regrettable behavior. Most 
broadcasters are decent and proper stewards of the public airwaves, but 
the poor judgment of a select few casts a dark shadow on the entire 
industry. Perhaps these wayward broadcasters mistakenly thought that 
the kickoff of a new Super Bowl would see this issue recede and 
lawmakers would ``let it be.'' Let me be clear, the need to enforce the 
indecency laws is greater than any one malfunction.
  It is important for Congress to ensure that the FCC not only 
maintains its newfound alertness, but that it also has the right tools 
to ensure proper enforcement against indecency over the public 
airwaves.
  H.R. 310 will ensure that the FCC has such tools. First, the bill 
responds to the overriding need to raise the maximum indecency fine to 
a level that will deter even the largest companies. Second, the bill 
compels the FCC to use the license renewal and revocation processes to 
examine more closely the fitness of certain licensees, particularly 
broadcasters that repeatedly violate the FCC's rules. Third, needed 
attention is also paid to the consumer complaint process by compelling 
the FCC to act on complaints within a specific time-frame. Fourth, this 
bill will make the FCC more accountable by requiring regular reports to 
Congress on its enforcement activities. This reporting requirement 
should encourage any new FCC chairman to carry on the moral virtue that 
came rather late to the outgoing chairman.
  Our constituents have made it clear that they are fed up with the 
level of sex and violence on television and radio. They deserve to be 
able to turn on their television or radio at appropriate times without 
being bombarded by filth and smut. The increased oversight and 
penalties contained in H.R. 310 should provide the proper incentive to 
broadcasters to keep it clean. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
support this sensible bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Americans are right to be outraged at much of 
the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many 
television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of 
Americans and feature lewd, inappropriate conduct. It is totally 
legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such 
as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure 
networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not 
legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs.
  The First Amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . 
abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' It does not make an 
expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech 
is different because broadcasters are using the ``people's airwaves.'' 
Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than 
the people control the government in the People's Republic of China. 
Instead, the people's airwaves is a euphemism for government control of 
the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional 
authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.
  Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress 
determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast 
spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government 
should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast 
spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market 
processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law 
of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have 
provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has 
government regulation.
  Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over 
the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal 
regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one 
unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory 
control over the content of a means of communication in direct 
violation of the first amendment.
  Congress should reject H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement 
Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments 
to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate Federal standards, 
H.R. 310 expands an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power. H.R. 
310 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on 
individual artists for violating FCC regulations.
  Congress should also reject H.R. 310 because the new powers granted 
to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on 
political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined 
is ``obscene'' or ``indecent.'' While this may not appear to include 
political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious 
political movement that believes that the expression of certain 
political opinions should be censored by the government because it is 
``hate speech.'' Proponents of these views would not hesitate to 
redefine indecency to include hate speech. Ironically, many of the 
strongest proponents of H.R. 310 also hold views that would likely be 
classified as ``indecent hate speech.''
  The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor 
religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United 
States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate 
crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the 
popular movie, ``The Passion of the Christ.'' Can anyone doubt that, if 
H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show ``The Passion'' or 
similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders 
recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; 
this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The 
more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our 
religious liberties are endangered.
  The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions 
regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill's 
supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and 
other statements critical of the current administration and violating 
the standards of political correctness, by ``shock jock'' Howard Stern. 
I have heard descriptions of Stern's radio program that suggest this is 
a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that 
the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments 
about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of 
a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a 
constitutional republic.
  The Nation's leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, 
has expressed opposition to a Federal crackdown on radio broadcast 
speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats:

       If the government is going to ``censor'' what they think is 
     right and wrong. . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John 
     Kerrys . . . start running this country. And decide 
     conservative views are leading to violence?
       I am in the free speech business. It's one thing for a 
     company to determine if they are going to be party to it. 
     It's another thing for the government to do it.

  Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 310 creates 
will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large 
media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of 
the major media conglomerates when it does something especially 
outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going 
after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. 
Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of 
the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring 
the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations 
often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would 
not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick 
``Desperate Housewives'' off the air. Most significantly, college and 
independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to 
absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations 
occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke 
their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make 
tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about 
media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power 
to revoke licenses might increase media concentration.

  H.R. 310 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major 
broadcasters' profits depend on their ability to please their audiences 
and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes ``risk 
adverse,'' that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a 
substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into 
customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid 
offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and 
thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS's quick attempt at 
``damage control'' after the last year's Super Bowl. Shortly before the 
2004 Super Bowl, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power 
of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans 
to air the movie ``The Reagans,'' which outraged conservatives 
concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan.
  Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect 
them from ``indecent'' broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of 
the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen 
to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I 
sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow 
citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that 
predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could 
find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should 
remember that government action cannot improve the people's morals; it 
can only reduce liberty.

[[Page H662]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 is the latest in an increasing number of 
attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and 
restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial 
speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech 
designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has 
no constitutional authority because the plain language of the first 
amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech.
  Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the 
Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this 
Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted 
political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the 
Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against 
terrorism to monitor critics of the administration's foreign policy, 
thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college 
campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of 
the rules of ``political correctness.'' Even telling a ``politically 
incorrect'' joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought 
police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to 
use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views 
they consider ``unpatriotic'' and/or punish colleges when the 
composition of the facility does not meet their definition of 
diversity.
  These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and 
open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those 
ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those 
currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech 
invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well 
for the future of personal liberty in America.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 310 is the latest assault in 
a disturbing pattern of attacks on the first amendment, I must vote 
against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the so-
called Broadcast Decency bill.
  I am as concerned as any parent about the content on television. I do 
not want my young children or grandchildren exposed to programming that 
is unsuitable for them. Yet, nowhere in this bill is there a definition 
of indecent material. All this bill does is increase fines over tenfold 
for what the Bush administration deems to be indecent.
  Our laws are only as good as the people enforcing them and I do not 
trust this administration to exercise the appropriate judgment without 
clear standards. I'm concerned they'll use this new enforcement 
authority as a Trojan horse to arbitrarily target programming they deem 
unacceptable.
  I could not possibly give this administration more leeway to choke 
free speech. We have reached the point in this country where 
questioning our leaders is called unpatriotic and characterized as 
aiding the terrorists; columnists are paid our tax dollars by the 
Federal Government to spout the Bush administration's official 
propaganda; the very agency charged with maintaining a diversity of 
ideas on the airwaves wants to give free rein to a handful of 
corporations to control information; and where stations refuse to air 
the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' lest the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission might be ordered to find a sacrificial lamb 
to appease the religious right.
  I do not support the rush to media conglomeration and I do not trust 
religious zealots to decide for every American what they can and can 
not watch. Since that is who this administration is serving, I vote 
``no'' on giving them more authority to undermine freedom of speech.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate on the 
bill has expired.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Upton:
       In section 503(b)(2)(F)(ii) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 as amended by section 3 of the bill, strike ``and'' at 
     the end of subclause (I), strike the period at the end of 
     subclause (II) and insert ``; and'', and after subclause (II) 
     insert the following new subclause:

       (III) if the violator is an individual, the financial 
     impact of a forfeiture penalty on that individual.

       In section 503(b)(5)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 as amended by section 4(4)(D) of the bill, strike 
     ``willfully or intentionally made the utterance'' and insert 
     ``willfully and intentionally made the utterance, knowing or 
     having reason to know that the utterance would be 
     broadcast''.
       In paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (6) of section 10, strike 
     ``year covered'' and insert ``years covered''.
       In section 10, by strike ``Each calendar'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Required Contents.--Each calendar
       Add at the end of section 10 the following new subsection:
       (b) Years Covered.--For purposes of this section, the 
     ``years covered'' by the report required under this section 
     shall be the years beginning with calendar year 2000 through 
     the calendar year preceding the year in which the report is 
     submitted.
       In section 11 of the bill, strike ``General Accounting 
     Office'' each place it appears and insert ``Government 
     Accountability Office''.
       In section 11(a) of the bill, after ``study examining'' 
     insert the following: ``, with respect to calendar year 2000 
     through the calendar year preceding the year in which the 
     report is submitted''.
       After section 10, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):

     SEC. 11. UPDATING GUIDANCE TO THE BROADCAST INDUSTRY 
                   REGARDING INDECENCY.

       Within 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and at least once every 3 years thereafter, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall revise, on the basis of 
     recent developments in the Commission indecency case law, the 
     Commission's policy statement to provide industry guidance on 
     the Commission's interpretation of, and enforcement policies 
     regarding, the laws and regulations concerning broadcast 
     indecency, as contained in the policy statement adopted March 
     14, 2001, and released April 6, 2001 (FCC 01-90).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 95, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this manager's amendment offered by 
me and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I want to again 
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Barton), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
for their bipartisan cooperation on this amendment, as well as the 
entire legislation.
  What this amendment does is it makes seven noncontroversial changes 
to the underlying bill.
  First, the amendment clarifies that the liability standard for non-
licensees is willful and intentional.
  Second, the amendment clarifies that for individual non-licensees to 
be found liable, their indecent statements must have made knowing or 
having reason to know that the statements would be broadcast.
  Third, the amendment requires the FCC to look at the impact of a 
forfeiture penalty on an individual.
  I want to pay a special tribute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Bono) for her work on these three issues during the committee 
consideration of this bill. These three changes simply clarify our 
intent to ensure that performers as non-licensees are treated fairly.
  During the committee consideration, there were some concerns 
expressed that the individual-performer liability provisions in H.R. 
310 could be used to fine artists that use offensive language when 
their recordings are played on the radio. The phrase ``willfully and 
intentionally'' in this amendment is meant to include those situations 
where an individual intentionally utters material consciously and 
deliberately which he or she knows or has reason to know will be 
broadcast. For instance, a live interview of a player at a basketball 
game or Janet Jackson's performance at the Super Bowl are clear 
examples where the performer intentionally said or did something 
knowing it would be broadcast.
  Alternatively, when an artist records a song in a studio, he or she 
perhaps has a hope that the song will be broadcast, but does not sing 
the lyrics with the intent to broadcast at that moment or even knowing 
that it will be broadcast in the future.
  Similarly, if an athlete or a coach in the heat of a sporting event, 
such a baseball player being hit by a pitch, reflexively yells out an 
obscene, indecent, profane utterance caught by a field microphone, the 
situation would also not be captured by the willful and intentional 
standard, as his or her actions were not intentionally done and knowing 
that they would be broadcast.
  In addition, the manager's amendment underscores the FCC's 
requirement that when setting penalties for

[[Page H663]]

individual performers, it must look at the ability of that individual 
to pay, as required by existing law, and the FCC must take into 
consideration the impact of the forfeiture penalties on that 
individual.
  Clearly, not all individuals who may run afoul of the law have the 
same ability to pay. A pro athlete or a blockbuster recording artist 
may have significantly greater worth than a struggling artist or 
college athlete. That is why we require the FCC to factor this in when 
setting such penalties, and underscore that in this amendment.
  Fourth, the amendment changes the General Accounting Office to its 
new name of Government Accountability Office.
  Fifth, the amendment requires the FCC's annual indecency enforcement 
report to include data going back to 2000.
  Sixth, it requires the GAO's indecency enforcement report to include 
data going back to 2000.
  Lastly, the amendment requires the FCC to update its broadcast 
indecency enforcement guidelines at least every 3 years.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) for her 
work on that issue, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) for his bipartisan cooperation and cosponsoring this 
amendment with me, and thank the Committee on Rules for making it in 
order. I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, although not opposed to the amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully support this amendment, which incorporates a 
number of changes to the bill. We have worked together in a bipartisan 
fashion to develop this package of refinements to the legislation. 
These are noncontroversial changes, and I urge Members to support the 
amendment.
  The first change further clarifies that we intend for the FCC when 
levying a fine on a non-licensee to take into account the financial 
impact of a particular fine on an individual when considering an 
individual's ability to pay.
  The second change merely adjusts the standard for an utterance of an 
indecency so that it reads ``willfully and intentionally uttered,'' so 
that there is no confusion.
  As the gentleman from Michigan has pointed out, it is not the 
intention of either the majority or the minority to have an act which 
is not intentional to be penalized by this legislation. The gentleman 
from Michigan did outline a good example of how such an occurrence 
could be wrongly interpreted unless the language ``intentionally'' was 
added to the legislation.
  We thank the majority for accommodating the concern which the 
minority had on that issue. We think that it definitely strengthens the 
legislation, and it ensures that it will be used only for the purpose 
for which the legislation is intended and not to reach unintentional 
behavior which may have incidentally been uttered.
  Thirdly, the GAO study in the bill will be limited to looking back 
and analyzing indecency issues at the FCC only to the year 2000.
  Finally, the amendment includes a provision offered by our colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), which tasks the FCC with 
updating its guidance for broadcast licensees with regard to these 
issues.
  Again, these are noncontroversial changes, and I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan (Chairman Upton) for his assistance on these 
clarifications, and I urge Members to support the amendment. Again, I 
thank all of the Members for their cooperation in this legislative 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this amendment, but I do 
oppose this bill. Like many Americans, I exercise my right not to view 
programming I find offensive by using that miracle of modern 
technology, the remote control. It lets you change the channel or even 
turn off the TV entirely. I recommend everyone buy one and learn how to 
use it. If you want to protect your children, there is the V-chip for 
that purpose. People ought to use that too.
  But the Puritans of this House and elsewhere in government are not 
satisfied with free choice and the free market. Instead, they want the 
government to decide what is or is not appropriate for the public to 
watch or listen to.
  Just recently, for example, the Secretary of Education on his second 
day on the job snapped into action and threatened public broadcasting 
funding if they dared air a show in which real live families with real 
live same-sex parents would appear. It was actually a show about making 
maple syrup, not an advocacy piece about family arrangements. But it 
was too much for the Secretary of Education.
  ``Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the 
lifestyles portrayed in this episode,'' Spellings wrote in her 
threatening letter to the CEO of PBS. Who asked her?
  Then there was the strange case of SpongeBob Square Pants, a cartoon 
character who appeared in a video promoting tolerance entitled ``We Are 
Family.'' Who were the purveyors of this objectionable material? Well, 
among others, the Anti-Defamation League's successful ``World of 
Difference'' program and Sesame Street's ``Sesame Foundation.'' It 
seems some self-appointed guardians of our morals are fine with the 
idea of tolerance, unless it includes people they don't like. ``We see 
the video as an insidious means by which the organization is 
manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids,'' Paul Batura, a 
spokesman for Focus on the Family, told the New York Times. ``It is a 
classic bait and switch.''
  A former Member of this House condemned NBC for airing ``Schindler's 
List,'' saying that the Holocaust film took network television ``to an 
all time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity'' during 
family viewing time. He said that NBC's decision to air the movie on 
Sunday evening should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals 
everywhere.
  Then-Senator Alfonse D'Amato properly replied that ``to equate the 
nudity of Holocaust victims in the concentration camps with any sexual 
connotation is outrageous and offensive.'' But with this bill, where 
would we be if that former Member of the House were a member of the 
FCC?
  So what next? We are already seeing a great deal of self-censorship 
as the self-appointed guardians of public decency go after anything 
that offends them personally. We saw recently many affiliates of ABC 
refuse to show ``Saving Private Ryan'' because they were afraid of the 
fines that the FCC might, might, levy. So there is self-censorship 
because of the chilling effect.
  Evidently, the Members of this House do not trust Americans to make 
up their own minds and the large corporations that own media 
conglomerates are not about to risk profits by running afoul of the 
people with power and their own agenda.
  I would suggest that if my colleagues are looking for obscene and 
indecent material, they can turn off their televisions and log on to 
WWW.Congress.Gov. On the Committee on the Judiciary Web site you can 
find sexually graphic material, including graphic sexual accounts in 
the Starr Report of several years ago. Children doing their homework 
everywhere can read this.
  In this last Congress, a Member of this House introduced legislation 
containing eight words that would probably draw half a million dollar 
fines under this legislation. Our Legislative Information System still 
has this up for anyone to read.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress and the FCC have no business telling people 
what they can or cannot watch, what sorts of tolerance it will or will 
not tolerate, or what values parents may or may not desire to instill 
in their children. You do not have to love indecency to oppose this 
bill. You merely have to have faith in and respect for the judgment of 
the American people, and a distrust in the omnipotent judgment of 
government bureaucrats. I urge the defeat of this bill.

[[Page H664]]

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
310. Passage of this bill will mark a very important step, in my 
opinion, toward protecting American children.
  I especially do want to thank the committee for their work on this 
bill, and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Chairman Upton) for their work on this legislation.
  The purpose, of course, of the legislation that we are discussing 
today is to return decent, family-friendly broadcast television and 
radio to families across America. I should note that this legislation 
in no way changes the FCC's current definition of obscenity, indecency, 
or profanity. Rather, it enables the agency to enforce the existing 
rules.
  As has been stated here already on the floor today, it would allow 
the FCC to impose a fine of half a million dollars against broadcasters 
for every violation of obscene, indecent, and profane material. Of 
course, additionally the bill will allow the FCC to fine networks and 
entertainers for up to half a million dollars if they willfully or 
intentionally violate indecency standards by airing obscene, indecent, 
or profane material.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the passage of H.R. 310 today and would 
urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly support this legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back 
the balance of my time, with thanks to the chairman of the committee 
for his great work.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the staff, Kelly Cole, Will 
Nordwind and Howard Waltzman. They have been terrific working with 
staffs on both sides.
  I remind my colleagues this passed overwhelmingly in not only the 
committee, but last year as well, and also in the Senate. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 95, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill and the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 389, 
nays 38, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               YEAS--389

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--38

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Berman
     Clay
     Conyers
     Delahunt
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McDermott
     Nadler
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cole (OK)
     Eshoo
     Kaptur
     Reichert
     Stupak
     Wynn

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ISRAEL and Ms. BERKLEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, I 
was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation.
  Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: (1) 
Rollcall No. 35: ``Yes'' (Final Passage of H.R. 310).

                          ____________________