[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4035-4056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 554 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 554

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3717) to increase the penalties for violations 
     by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions 
     against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane 
     language. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed ninety minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except

[[Page 4036]]

      one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule 
for H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. H.R. 3717 
is a direct response to the increasing levels of indecency on broadcast 
television and radio. The bill has strong bipartisan support, with over 
145 cosponsors, and is a comprehensive measure that is reasonable, fair 
and firm.
  The problem of obscenity on TV has been going on for far too long. 
However, the Super Bowl brought it to national attention. On February 
1, millions of families were at home watching the Super Bowl together. 
I myself was watching the game, cheering on my Carolina Panthers. This 
was a moment of pride for my district, and in one moment the attention 
was shifted.
  I was appalled by the shameless stunt that took place during the 
Super Bowl. And the excuses I have heard ring very hollow. Obviously, 
if it was deliberate, then Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake thought 
they could get away with it.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents are very tired of having to cover over 
their children's eyes and ears every time they turn on the television 
set, especially during the time that is supposed to be considered 
family time.
  H.R. 3717 the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 raises the 
maximum penalty cap for broadcast stations, networks, and performers to 
$500,000 for each indecency violation. By significantly increasing the 
FCC fines for indecency, networks and individuals will do more than 
just apologize for airing such brazen material, they will be paying big 
bucks for their offenses.
  I am very pleased that this legislation streamlines the Federal 
Communication Commission enforcement process for networks and 
individuals who willfully and intentionally put indecent material over 
the broadcast airwaves. So complaints do not languish at the FCC, the 
bill requires them to complete action on indecency complaints within 
270 days of receipt. In the past, there have been examples where it has 
taken several years, and the broadcasters know they will not be taken 
to task until long after the offense is over.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), for moving this legislation so swiftly through his 
committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) 
for his resolve to protect our Nation's airwaves. He has been working 
on this issue for a long, long time.
  Broadcast airwaves belong to the American people, not to the 
networks. So I believe it is time for Congress to defend and protect 
America's parents and children and pass a tough bill to ensure decency 
on the airwaves. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill. I do so because it is time to send a strong message to 
broadcasters that indecent television and radio programs are not okay.
  For too long, the producers of indecent programming have regarded FCC 
fines as just a minor nuisance; as a cost of doing business. That 
attitude has to end. Congress needs to send a strong message to 
broadcasters that doing anything for profit, no matter how much it 
offends American viewers and harms the public interest, is definitely 
not okay.
  Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of broadcasting in our country is 
that the American people grant private businesses the ability to make 
money while using our public airwaves. In exchange for a license, we 
ask that broadcasters air programs that serve the public interest, and 
we ask them not to broadcast indecent material at times when children 
are likely to be watching or listening. In other words, we have a 
social contract with our media companies. They can use the airwaves, 
but they must run their businesses in a socially responsible way. They 
must remember they have a duty to serve not only their shareholders but 
also the American people.
  The reason we have special rules for radio and television programming 
is that the broadcast media is, in the words of Supreme Court Justice 
John Paul Stevens, ``a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all 
Americans.''
  When 100 million Americans, including myself, tuned into the Super 
Bowl, we allowed a broadcast company to enter the privacy of our homes. 
Just like any other guest, we welcomed them into our home. We expected 
the Super Bowl broadcast to be respectful of us and our families. We do 
not expect to agree with our house guests on everything, but we do 
expect them to show good judgment and to refrain from saying crude and 
offensive things, especially when children are in the room. What we all 
got on February 1 was anything but a good guest, Mr. Speaker.
  Besides the now infamous incident involving Justin Timberlake and 
Janet Jackson, the half-time show was full of crude and sexually 
explicit performances. Throughout the game, we were subjected also to 
some offensive advertising. And all this was going on in our dens, our 
living rooms, and the other places we gather every year to watch the 
Super Bowl. It is estimated that one in five American children were 
watching this year's Super Bowl broadcast.
  I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the actual Super Bowl game 
was one of the most exciting, best-played games in the 38-year history 
of the sporting event. Decided by a field goal kicked with 4 seconds 
left, this year's game had plenty of action and drama to sell itself on 
its own merits, without adding the controversial material that has 
provoked so much outrage for the past month.
  To be fair, we should not be singling out the Super Bowl broadcast 
for our disapproval. When I drive around the Dallas-Fort Worth 
metropolitan area, I enjoy going up and down the radio dial to listen 
to many different stations that offer information and entertainment to 
the people of North Texas. I hear a lot of good programming, but I am 
also astonished at the amount of gratuitous foul language some talk 
show hosts use on a daily basis. The hosts of my favorite sports talk 
shows in the Dallas market seem to be using more and more offensive 
language.
  I applaud the FCC commissioners for aggressively cracking down on 
this type of programming and hope that this legislation gives them a 
more effective enforcement tool.
  I would also like to note that this problem goes beyond just the 
programming we receive in our homes from the FCC broadcast licensees. 
Congress does not currently have the same power to regulate the 
indecent content of cable programming as we do over broadcast 
programming. But all of us who have cable television know that there 
are cable network shows aired during family hours that are equally 
offensive and indecent. Although they operate under a regulatory system 
that would not be covered by the bill we are considering today, I urge 
the cable networks to remember that they have a social responsibility 
to the American people too.
  Mr. Speaker, some people may be suggesting that with this bill and 
the speeches we are giving today, we are trying to censor speech or 
limit expression in our society. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. As a former broadcast journalist, and as the father of a 
broadcast journalist, I have a deep respect for the right of 
journalists, artists, political and religious leaders, and

[[Page 4037]]

 anyone else for that matter, to exercise their constitutional freedom 
of speech. Our communication laws on obscenity and indecency do not 
stop free speech or suppression. They simply say it is not always 
appropriate to broadcast crude and sexually explicit material into our 
homes and into our motor vehicles, especially when our children could 
be watching or listening.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and the FCC's new 
efforts to take back our air waives from the people who have cynically 
decided the best way to sell advertising is by shocking and offending 
us. I have more faith in Americans than that. Voting for this bill is 
not just a vote to protect our families from indecent programming, it 
is also a vote in support of the vast majority of broadcasters, 
producers, and performers today who are running profitable businesses 
while broadcasting in a way that serves the interests of our families 
and our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a fellow member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and thank the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 554 is a fair and balanced rule that will 
provide House Members with the opportunity to consider a number of 
issues affecting our efforts to get indecent material off our airwaves. 
Under this rule, the House will have the opportunity to consider a 
manager's amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and an 
amendment by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to strike 
the increased fine limit on entertainers, and an amendment by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) to direct the General Accounting 
Office to provide a detailed report to Congress about the number of 
complaints about indecent broadcasting and the processes and procedures 
that the FCC has implemented to investigate these complaints.
  With respect to H.R. 3717, the underlying legislation, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, for all of the 
time and effort he has invested in bringing this very important and 
well-crafted legislation to the House floor.
  Vulgarity, profanity, and even obscenity are an all-too-common trend 
on our television and radio airwaves today. Originally, the Golden 
Globe Awards incident last year appeared to be an isolated event; 
however, the subsequent profanity during the Billboard Music Awards 
broadcast and the grossly inappropriate halftime show of the 2004 Super 
Bowl made clear that Congress needs to take action and give the FCC the 
tools it needs to crack down on such tawdry programming.
  H.R. 3717 provides some of these tools for the FCC and is a step in 
the right direction. This legislation increases the penalties imposed 
for broadcast indecency, which allows the FCC to more authoritatively 
regulate on-air programming. Also, this bill makes it easier for the 
FCC to hold individuals subject to the same fines as broadcasters for 
indecent actions.
  In conclusion, families must be able to watch prime-time TV together 
without the fear of watching obscene, profane, or vulgar programming; 
and H.R. 3717 will help make this a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule so we may proceed to 
debate the underlying legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has denied me and 
other Democrats the opportunity to offer amendments that are vital and 
directly relevant to the debate on eliminating indecent content on the 
public airwaves.
  Americans should look at the link between the surge in complaints on 
indecent content on TV and radio and the increasing media consolidation 
that has occurred in recent years.
  During the Committee on Energy and Commerce's three hearings on 
Indecency in the Media, it became apparent it is the media giants who 
are the greatest offenders of the FCC's indecency standard. The biggest 
FCC fines have gone to the biggest media players. In the past 5 years, 
80 percent of the fines on violations of the FCC indecency standard 
were handed out to the media conglomerates.
  I believe the increasing amount of indecent content on our public 
airwaves is a symptom of media consolidation, but the FCC never 
bothered to look at this possible link before they issued new rules 
last year to allow these media giants to get even bigger. The Parents 
Television Council noted this as well. Director Brent Bozell said after 
the FCC issued the new rules allowing more media consolidation, and I 
would like to quote him, he said, ``The rules change means that a 
handful of megaconglomerates will impose their own standards of 
decency. They have been handed unfettered opportunity to broadcast 
violent and vulgar programming with impugnity.''
  My amendment would have delayed the FCC rules on media consolidation 
while the GAO conducted a thorough review of the correlation between 
indecent content on our public airwaves and media consolidation.
  I had also offered a pared-down amendment that would have authorized 
a study without delaying the rules. I will still be seeking the GAO 
study, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this request I will be 
making later today.
  The growing number of media monopolies is relevant to this indecency 
debate, and the Committee on Rules should not have denied me and others 
the opportunity to offer our amendments. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule until we get the amendments that will help us further 
this debate.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the subcommittee chairman whose 
bill this is.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Committee on Rules 
and the leadership for getting this bill on a fast track, and I want to 
compliment my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We 
acted very swiftly to get this bill to the floor. In fact, we passed 
the bill out 49 to 1 just last week.
  I would like to say as well that I think this rule is a fair rule. I 
think the amendments will be debated fairly. I think that the 
membership of the House will respond to those amendments; and obviously 
my hope is to adopt the bill, the legislation, overwhelmingly at the 
end of the day.
  I want to say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) on media 
ownership, there will be a time and place for that debate. We had a 
little debate on this last year. There was a compromise that was made 
as part of the appropriations process. This issue is not going to go 
away, but I think it is imperative that we get this bill to the 
President's desk as fast we can.
  The President did send a veto signal as a statement of administration 
policy last year on this very issue. If for some reason that amendment 
was attached to this bill, there is no question it would delay 
enactment of this bill. It is not in place to add that amendment to 
this bill. I accept what the Committee on Rules did yesterday. We had a 
good debate on it yesterday afternoon. I think they made a wise 
decision not to make that amendment in order, knowing there is another 
day and time when we can debate that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 
for offering virtually the same amendment in full committee last week 
and then withdrawing that amendment even though a point of order had 
been raised.
  I urge Members to support this fair rule so we can get this bill to 
the President's desk as fast as we can.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, there are clearly some messages to take from 
recent events and the bill that is on the

[[Page 4038]]

 floor today. The overriding message is that there is a responsibility 
that comes with being entrusted to broadcast over the public airwaves.
  People say if viewers do not like the content of a certain show and 
find it offensive, just do not watch. The problem with that argument is 
when content is being broadcast over public airwaves, it sometimes 
cannot be avoided. The fact is that people in this country surf and 
flip up and down channels on TV and radio. If we do not regulate what 
people can see and hear in these forums, children in particular will be 
exposed to material that is completely inappropriate.
  While we, and broadcasters in particular, should take action to crack 
down on indecent material, we must not allow this focus on indecency to 
become a mission instead to do everything possible to gain favor with 
the FCC and their ultimate leader, President Bush. Being contrary to 
the government and offensive to the President and his campaign donors 
should not fall into the category of indecent material.
  Unfortunately, the Clear Channel case with Howard Stern leaves that 
impression. Consider the facts: on February 25, Clear Channel announced 
that its radio stations would no longer carry the ``Howard Stern 
Show,'' citing ``indecent content'' in Stern's February 24 radio 
broadcast. But nothing in Mr. Stern's recent shows has been cited for 
indecency, and it has been years since he has been fined by the FCC. 
Some commentators have said his show has been milder in recent months. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Stern's sponsors have not 
pulled their advertisements, meaning that the sponsors do not believe 
the show is across the line.
  The only thing that has changed is that just 2 days before his 
suspension, Mr. Stern had become more critical of the Bush 
administration, an administration Clear Channel and its top executives 
have bank-rolled to the tune of $42,000 this election campaign cycle, 
and hundreds of thousands of dollars in years past.
  Even more curious is the location where Mr. Stern's show is being 
dropped. Is it simple coincidence that political battlegrounds of Ohio 
and Florida are losing a popular critic of the Bush administration just 
as the election season begins?
  While we are right to take action today to keep indecent material off 
the public airwaves, this should not be seen as open season on a 
diversity of views. If we only have radio personalities who are 
sympathetic to the President and his large corporate backers, then we 
will only have a small number of voices being heard, and all of them 
will be at the far right end of the radio dial.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but I 
would like to express a few views on why I will oppose the legislation.
  I am convinced that the Congress has been a very poor steward of the 
first amendment, and we are moving in the direction of further 
undermining the first amendment with this legislation.
  First, many years ago, it was an attack on commercial speech by 
dividing commercial and noncommercial speech, which the Constitution 
does not permit. Then there was a systematic attack from the left, 
writing rules against hate speech which introduced the notion of 
political correctness. Recently, there was a petition to the Department 
of Justice that has asked the Department to evaluate ``The Passion of 
Christ'' as an example of hate speech. Unintended consequences do 
occur.
  Next came along a coalition between right and left, and there was an 
attack on campaign speech with the campaign finance reform with a 
suspension of freedom of speech during an election period.
  Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but 
how we do it is critical; because ``indecency'' is a subjective term, 
and it has yet to be defined by the courts.
  We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution 
is instructed to: ``make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.'' It 
cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to 
be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is 
responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first 
amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the 
airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.
  I would like to close by quoting someone who is obviously not a 
libertarian and obviously not a liberal who has great concern about 
what we are doing, and he comes from the conservative right, Rush 
Limbaugh. He said: ``If the government is going to `censor' what they 
think is right and wrong, what happens if a whole bunch John Kerrys or 
Terry McAuliffes start running this country and decide conservative 
views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It is 
one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be a party to 
it. It is another thing for the government to do it.''
  Mr. Speaker, we all should be in the free speech business.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this rule.
  The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, H.R. 3717, has 
overwhelming bipartisan support. H.R. 3717, which was adopted on a vote 
of 49 to 1 by my Committee, increases the Federal Communications 
Commission's authority to assess fines for indecent broadcasts. As 
Janet Jackson revealed to the entire Nation during the Super Bowl 
Halftime, broadcasters and performers have stopped minding the public's 
store, allowing all sorts of offensive material to travel across the 
public airways.
  This is not a new problem. For years now, radio programming has 
gotten progressively more base, and within the last year and a half a 
number of so-called celebrities have let expletives fly on live 
broadcast television coverage of awards shows. Federal law already 
allows the FCC to assess fines on licensees and non-licensees for the 
broadcast of indecent content during hours when children are likely to 
be in the audience, and courts have made clear that the FCC's 
definition and regulation of indecent content is constitutional.
  The problem, however, is that the FCC currently is authorized to 
assess a maximum fine of only $27,500 per violation on licensees, and 
$11,000 per violation on individuals. Such weak penalties amount to 
little more than a cost of doing business, and provide little to no 
deterrent. What's more, the FCC can only assess such fines on 
individuals on the second infraction, which means that celebrities such 
as Ms. Jackson get a free pass on the first offense should they do 
something indecent.
  H.R. 3717 addresses these problems by raising the maximum fine to 
$500,000; permitting the FCC to consider revoking a broadcast license 
after the third offense; and allowing the FCC to fine an individual on 
the first offense. H.R. 3717 does not require such severe penalties, 
but gives the FCC needed discretion to tailor its sanctions to each 
particular offense. Perhaps this will send the message to broadcasters 
and individuals that indecency on our airwaves is no laughing matter. 
H.R. 3717 also imposes a shot clock on the FCC to ensure that these 
matters are resolved expeditiously.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and I urge Members to support it.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rules for 
H.R. 3717. Yesterday I offered an amendment to the bill that would end 
industry-paid travel for commissioners and staff of the Federal 
Communications Commission once and for all. I am very disappointed that 
it was not made in order. In fact, 5 of the 6 amendments offered by my 
Democratic colleagues were not made in order. I hope my colleagues 
would join me in opposing this rule and request an open rule.
  My amendment was a modified version of a bill that I introduced last 
year in response to a report documenting over $2.8 million in travel 
costs spent by FCC-regulated private companies for more than 2,500 
trips taken by FCC commissioners and staff over the past 8 years. Such 
practices have contributed to the FCC's reputation as a ``captured 
agency'' controlled by the industries it regulates.
  I am aware that Chairman Powell promised last fall to eliminate the 
practice of corporate sponsored travel, but I don't believe a one-time 
promise is strong enough to eliminate the practice once and for all. 
What if the commission decides to re-institute the policy in a few 
years? What if there is a change in the administration this fall, and 
we end up having a new chairman? There is no guarantee that what the 
FCC has decided to do is not just a way to wait out the storm caused by 
the report,

[[Page 4039]]

 and that it could revert back to the old arrangement any time.
  I support granting the FCC the authority to impose severe penalties 
for indecent broadcasting, but we must also ensure that the Commission 
uses the new enforcement powers this bill would provide. One way to do 
so is to eliminate, once and for all, any potential conflict of 
interest caused by the practice of corporate sponsored travel for FCC 
travel. I hope my colleagues would join me in rejecting this rule and 
allow consideration of my amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). Pursuant to House Resolution 
554 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3717.

                              {time}  1045


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3717) to increase the penalties for violations by television and 
radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
indecent, and profane language, with Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation this 
morning. This legislation actually appeared on my radar screen last 
year as we began to set our agenda for 2004. I introduced the 
legislation in early January, held our first hearing on the legislation 
before the Super Bowl, and the administration supports our bill. They 
sent us a statement that they supported our bill in committee, and I 
will include that Statement of Administration Policy as part of the 
Record in support of this legislation today.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     3717. This legislation will make broadcast television and 
     radio more suitable for family viewing by giving the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to impose 
     meaningful 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.

  I remember a speech well by Michael Powell, the Chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission, where he said the fines under 
current law are peanuts. It is a cost of doing business. They are not 
high enough.
  In fact, in the hearings that we held, we discovered that by the time 
you saddle up some of those attorneys at the Department of Justice and 
send them out to file a claim in Federal Court to go after the dollars 
that the FCC might have fined, they are not going to recoup their 
costs.
  The Upton-Markey-Tauzin-Dingell-Barton bill has been cosponsored by 
more than 140 Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats. Chairman 
Powell and his four other commissioners, two Republicans and two 
Democrats, when you look at their statements in support of this 
legislation, when you look at their statements as they imposed fines on 
broadcasters who cross that line, every one of them, Republican or 
Democrat, has lamented the fact that they cannot raise the fines higher 
than they are under current law, a maximum of only $27,500.
  Because of the legislation we pursued on a strong bipartisan basis, 
and again, I commend my colleagues on the other side, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), we were able to pass this legislation out of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce last week on a recorded vote of 49 to 1. The other 
body is beginning to move as well. They passed their legislation out 34 
to 0.
  Our bill was strengthened in the full committee markup. We added a 
provision on three-strikes-and-you-are-out. That is, if you are a 
repeat offender, a broadcaster, and you go through three series of 
fines violating the current standard, there is set up an automatic 
revocation hearing to take away that license.
  We established a ``shot clock'' so that the FCC has to act on 
complaints within a certain number of days. We protected affiliated 
broadcasters. They do not always know what is coming down the pike in 
terms of what they are broadcasting. We raised the fine from the 
initial bill as I introduced it of $275,000 for the maximum fine to 
$500,000. We added a provision asking for the National Association of 
Broadcasters to make part of their code a Broadcast Decency Code, 
something they had years ago and was struck under antitrust violations.
  We also added a provision making the performers, the talent, liable 
for their own words. You cannot tell me that they do not know what the 
standards are. I have heard them whine, I have heard them take out that 
violin and whine about what this bill will do. Well, guess what, Mr. 
Chairman? It is time to take away that violin and give them the fork. 
They are done. This ought to stop.
  Guess what? Our bill does nothing to change existing standards. Zero. 
Nada. Not a thing. I would note that the 1927 Radio Act has held up in 
the courts for more than 75 years. The FCC has the authority to punish 
those who air obscene, indecent or profane language. It has been upheld 
by the Supreme Court, who ruled in 1978 that the government does have 
the right to regulate indecent broadcasts and to, in fact, establish a 
definition of indecency that remains the FCC's guiding principle.
  There is language, material, that describes sexual or excretory 
material or organs, and it is deemed patently offensive as measured by 
contemporary community standards. In the mid 1990s, the court limited 
the ban on indecent airing between the hours of 6:00 in the morning and 
10:00 at night, when kids are most likely to be watching or listening.
  This legislation pertains only to broadcast radio or TV. Why is that? 
Because it is the public airwaves, that is why. And for those that 
challenge the standards that are out there and do not realize what some 
of these broadcasters have said, I would ask them to come see me during 
the next couple of hours of debate on the floor, because with me I have 
a notebook, and in that notebook we have the specific language that 
broadcasters have used in defiance of the law.
  You cannot tell me that this stuff should be on the air. It should 
not be. We need to make sure we stop it, and we do, in its tracks.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. This is a 
bipartisan bill that the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 
Internet, led by the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Upton) and the 
Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
have put together, working in conjunction with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself and the other members of the minority 
on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, working in a bipartisan 
fashion, in order to craft a bill related to the broadcast radio and 
television obscenity and decency and profanity issues.

[[Page 4040]]

  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to note that this 
legislation was introduced before the Super Bowl this year, not after. 
It was an issue that had already percolated up to the attention of the 
American public and to our subcommittee, and we had already decided 
that extra attention needed to be paid to the Federal Communications 
Commission and its lack of enforcement of these very important 
provisions.
  The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held three 
hearings on this issue, and from our hearings we confirmed a number of 
things. We have learned that although the Federal Communications 
Commission is charged with ensuring that licensees serve the public 
interest and that the stations do not air obscene, indecent or profane 
content in violation of the law and Commission rules, that until very 
recently, the Commission has not been an aggressive enforcer of the 
rules. Testimony from Federal Communications Commission Chairman 
Michael Powell indicates that cases are still languishing from 2 to 3 
years ago.
  We also learned that although the Federal Communications Commission 
has numerous enforcement tools, including the ability to revoke a 
station license, it appears as though the industry has largely 
concluded that the Federal Communications Commission is a paper tiger. 
The rare and paltry fines the Commission assesses have become nothing 
more than a joke within the broadcast industry, and the Commission 
never raises license revocation as a consequence for repeated indecency 
violations, even in the most egregious cases of these repeat violators. 
This legislation will help us to address the serious enforcement 
shortcomings at the Federal Communications Commission that we have 
identified.
  Finally, we have also learned that the industry needs to do a better 
job in educating parents about the tools that already may be in their 
hands that parents can utilize to address the myriad concerns they 
raise with us about what is on television. Parents can use the 
television rating system and the V-Chip, which stems from legislation 
which I authored as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  However, we have a huge educational challenge with the TV ratings 
system and how parents can use it in conjunction with the V-Chip. 
Studies indicate that if a parent of a child 12 and under has a V-Chip-
ready TV and knows this, that some 47 percent of such parents use the 
V-Chip, and they like it, because it allows them to program their TV 
set for their children 12 and under. Almost all of these parents who 
know about it are enthused about it. The problem is with the 
qualifiers. Almost half of those who have bought the approximately 100 
million V-Chip capable televisions since 2000 are not aware that they 
possess a television set with a V-Chip in it.
  In addition, many of these parents express confusion over the TV 
rating system itself, and one major network, NBC, still does not use 
the comprehensive rating system utilized by everyone else in the 
television industry. The industry did a good job with much fanfare 
after the TV rating system was initially finalized, in doing public 
service announcements and other educational messages regarding the 
ratings. Yet those efforts have waned in recent years.
  In my view, we need a comprehensive, industry-wide campaign to 
address this issue. The TV set manufacturers and the electronic 
retailers need to do a better job in alerting television buyers to the 
V-Chip, in part because many retail employees at these stores who sell 
TV sets are apparently unaware that the TV sets have a V-Chip in it. In 
addition, print media ought to include the television ratings of 
programs in the television guide so that parents see them when they 
look up what is on television that day or that evening.
  Finally, I believe the broadcast industry should renew its 
educational efforts on the television ratings system and also consider 
a number of other ideas to better assist parents, which I will address 
to our television networks on an ongoing basis, in order to ensure that 
they know that this is an issue that Americans care about.
  At our recent hearings, I challenged the industry to do several 
things to better help parents understand the TV rating system:
  First, use the V-Chip and utilize available per-channel blocking 
technologies on cable television.
  I requested that the television industry increase its public service 
advertisements about the television rating system and the V-Chip. I am 
happy to report that many, many industry participants on the networks 
and cable operators have agreed to do so, with some, such as Fox 
Television, including print advertising in their campaign as well.
  I will come back in a while and outline what is happening in the rest 
of the television and cable industry, but I think it is important for 
the Congress to pass this legislation, and then to keep up the pressure 
so that parents are given the tools that they need in order to protect 
the sights and the sounds which their children are exposed to.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
good State of Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the subcommittee, a 
cosponsor of the bill, and a very helpful force in getting this bill to 
the floor.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717. Every second 
of every day and in almost everything we do we are confronted by a 
multitude of images, some of which benefit our lives, others which do 
just the complete opposite.
  We live at a time when 98 percent of the households have one or more 
television sets. As of 2001, there were over 100 million Americans on-
line, with almost half of all of U.S. households with Internet access. 
This new media has enriched our lives. It has given up-to-the-very-
minute news reports from around the world, television shows that both 
educate and entertain, and Web sites that have every answer to every 
question posed, it seems.
  However, unfortunately, there is a negative side, those Web sites 
whose sole purpose is to satiate the prurient interests of its viewers, 
television programs that play to the lowest denominator of decency. 
There are those who seek to test the boundaries, and those who try to 
ignite a firestorm, so the 24-hour news stations have something to 
report on at 3 a.m., or attempt to revitalize a career by shocking 
viewers. It is these images, the ones we shield our children from, that 
this legislation seeks to penalize.
  This legislation was not born out of an isolated incident from a 
Super Bowl. It is not a hasty reaction to that at all.

                              {time}  1100

  This is a very serious level of effort that has lasted over the last 
year.
  We are raising the fine so that it is feasible and equitable for the 
government to enforce standards of decency. We are allowing the 
independent broadcasters who have no control over what they air to 
avoid liability. We are looking to the individual, who willfully and 
intentionally defies the law, to be held accountable.
  There are some who claim that we are towing the line of censorship; 
that that is the next step and we will go too far. However, I place the 
onus upon the network, the broadcasters, the entertainers, and the Web 
site managers to be their own guideposts of the Constitution and 
community standards.
  Governments should not be the decency police, but when laws are 
defied, we are required to step in and enforce the law.
  I support this bill and I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton) for the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Waxman.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) for yielding to me.
  I want to take 1 minute to say that the broadcasters have an interest 
in protecting the public's rights, but what

[[Page 4041]]

 are we doing about the concentration of power in the media? What are 
we doing about the lack of a fairness doctrine or equal time, 
especially at a time when we have the most important election with the 
political debate that ought to be honest, really fair and balanced, not 
just for some broadcaster to tell us it is fair and balanced when it is 
not? What are we doing about children's programs?
  Instead of dealing with those issues, we have a bill to increase the 
penalties for indecency on the airwaves while the FCC is already not 
enforcing the penalties they have at their disposal.
  I think we ought to recognize that if people feel they are doing 
something really important with this legislation, then I think it only 
opens the door to more government interference in free speech on the 
airwaves, and that it is somewhat hypocritical for the public to think 
we are doing something about the important issues in the broadcasting 
area when we are not even addressing, and the Republican leadership has 
stopped us from addressing, the concentration of the media in all these 
other matters.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I plan to vote no 
on the bill.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Broadcast 
Decency and Enforcement Act of 2004, which is a bipartisan product of 
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet. Both the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our chairman, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), have produced a good bill 
incorporating ideas of a number of Members.
  Let me say in response to my colleague from California, I noticed a 
substantial change in the last 2 months with the Federal Communications 
Commission. And I will talk about that a little bit. That without this 
legislation increasing the penalties, without the hearings we held, we 
would not see renewed vigor and renewed interest by the FCC enforcing 
the decency standards.
  And so, that is why even though the bill basically just increases the 
fines, what it did was it brought attention to the issue along with 
what has happened with our media outlets all across the country, I 
think, culminated in with what I think my colleague from New England 
would agree, was a great Super Bowl football game, but was eclipsed by 
what happened at half time.
  So, granted, this bill raises the penalties, but it also brought the 
attention of the regulators and a renewed vigor in enforcing the 
current law.
  It also includes an accountability in the bill that allows broadcast 
TV affiliates to place liability for content provided by the networks 
when the affiliates had little or no input on programming.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
working with me on this provision. We ought to make the penalties be 
where the people are making the decisions on the content, and not 
someone who just happens to have a license, who would not want the 
Super Bowl.
  The legislation also reaffirms the authority of the FCC to evaluate 
the licenses for television, radio, or broadcasters that repeatedly run 
afoul of FCC's indecency standards. Congress is not creating a new 
standard for content for public airwaves, we are only requiring that 
the current standards be enforced in a meaningful way.
  I think many radio and television broadcasters and cable and 
satellite providers are taking significant steps to respond to the 
American public on this issue. Broadcasters are going to convene a 
decency submit at the end of this month. The sickest radio shock jock, 
Bubba the Love Sponge, is off the air. The television networks are 
going to delayed feed for live shows so we will not have any accidents 
as we saw at the Super Bowl.
  The cable and satellite providers are stepping up efforts to educate 
their customers about their ability to block out channels they do not 
want to receive. And I hope these industry actions continue, and 
combined with our legislation, will cause the increasing indecency of 
broadcast content over the past few years to be reversed.
  In Congress, we can get back to our important things. And this I do 
agree with my California colleague on reducing the national debt, 
creating more American jobs, expanding health care for our needy 
children.
  The FCC has never been particularly motivated on the indecency cases, 
but in the last 3 years, complaints have increased so substantially, 
and after these hearings, now the Commission has seen a renewed 
interest in enforcement, particularly, again, after the hearings. And 
hopefully our action today will get the Commission in an even more 
aggressive motion.
  Again, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and our new 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) are to be commended on 
their work here today. I urge my colleagues to approve the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly say something about our immediate 
past chairman. I think all of us send our prayers and our hope to the 
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on his treatment 
and his surgery for his illness that was announced this week. Again, as 
a Democrat, we worked together typically on our committee, and all of 
us hope that the gentleman and his family are successful in being 
treated. Again, I yield back my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a very active 
member on this issue, an original cosponsor, one that has helped in 
many ways to get this bill to the floor.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we act on broadcast 
indecency. First I want to commend and thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his steadfast leadership on 
this issue. He has been one of the primary reasons for its success.
  This is not a new issue. Parents have been pleading with us to take 
action on this issue for years. Unfortunately, it took the use of the 
four letter word on network TV and Janet Jackson's indecent exposure at 
the Super Bowl and Howard Stern's foul and racist language to push us 
into action.
  I, for one, am tired of parents telling me how they need to cover 
their children's eyes and ears often too late because of the 
unacceptable language that has infiltrated television and radio. For 
too long, we have told the entertainment industry that the Federal 
Government is unwilling to hold them accountable for their actions.
  Today we are saying enough is enough. H.R. 3717 sends a clear signal 
to the entertainment industry, we are no longer going to stand idly by 
and force our parents to put up with this filth.
  H.R. 3717 is a good bill. Serious fines ensure that the FCC has the 
freedom to truly hit these huge companies where it hurts. And one of 
the most important provisions in the bill was added by my friend, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the three-strikes-and-you-
are-out provision. It allows broadcast licensees up to two broadcast 
indecency violations. On the third, proceedings for license revocation 
will begin. And this provision will make it clear that Congress is not 
going to put up with multiple violators.
  Mr. Chairman, families are sick and tired of worrying about what 
their children may see or hear every time they turn on television. They 
are frustrated that the media and industry has seemingly been able to 
broadcast any type of behavior or speech 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 mom and dads.
  To American parents, Congress has finally heard you. We will no 
longer stand idly by on this topic. As one of our Members said, if the 
entertainment industry cannot police themselves, we will do it for 
them. So I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), I

[[Page 4042]]

 thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the 
leadership of the committee for moving this important bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who added two very important amendments to this 
legislation.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for allowing me 
to have this time.
  I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. I would also 
add in my thanks to the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
and my thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) for working with me on some amendments that I do believe 
strengthen this bill.
  I think this is a very important issue for our country and our 
society. I do not think Congressmen should be the overseers of 
morality, I do not think Congress people are in a position to dictate 
censorship; but I do believe we are in a position to say that there 
ought to be some standards for decency in this country on broadcast TV.
  You see, unlike cable TV, which we invite into our homes, broadcast 
TV is ubiquitous. It is a public asset which we give away free to 
broadcasters to make a great deal of money. Because of that 
relationship, I believe they should adhere to high standards of 
decency, particularly during family viewing hours. That is why I think 
this bill is so important.
  I think the situation at the Super Bowl was only a small example of 
some of the things that American families are concerned about. We have 
to ask the question, will we sink to the lowest common denominator, the 
lewdest, most lascivious type of content, or will we say there are 
standards that have to be balanced. I think this bill says yes, there 
have to be standards.
  Let me tell you, from the Baptist church to the barber shop, people 
are saying this is the right thing to do. This bill strengthens 
penalties against broadcasters and others who engage in indecent 
content, indecent speech over public broadcast airwaves during family 
hours. And I think it is very appropriate.
  I worked with other members, my colleague, the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), as well as my colleague, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) on the Republican side, to add some 
strengthening measures in this legislation. Specifically, current law 
provides a presumption of license renewal. We should not have that 
presumption. We have now modified that. There is no presumption if 
there is evidence of incidents of indecent broadcasting.
  Similarly, routinely broadcasters have their licenses renewed. We 
believe that after three strikes, there ought to be an automatic 
revocation proceeding in which the merits of your conduct are examined 
before your license is renewed.
  As I said at the onset, this is a very important issue for our 
society. It describes the type of people we are. We are not censors, we 
are not morality police, but we are fair and decent people who care 
about what our children see and what they are exposed to.
  This bill, I think, strikes a proper balance by giving some real 
teeth to the enforcement process and providing incentives for 
broadcasters to be more conscious, to be more aware of public 
sensibilities. I think we have done the right thing. I am very proud 
and pleased to support this legislation.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, my friend and colleague.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. And I want to 
compliment the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) for their strong leadership on this issue as well as the 
ranking full committee member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell). They have all worked very well and very positively on this 
very important legislation.
  This bill has strong bipartisan support, 145 cosponsors in the House. 
It was reported out of the committee last week 49 to 1. The bill has 
been dubbed the ``Super Bowl Bill,'' but what many people I think do 
not realize is that H.R. 3717 was well on its way before the antics 
that we witnessed during the Super Bowl half-time show.
  In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had already held a hearing on it before 
the Super Bowl show occurred. But after that event did occur, one thing 
is absolutely crystal clear: This bill answers the call that we have 
heard from parents around the country, hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions of them, who are begging for some help. H.R. 3717 will make 
living rooms safe again all over America.
  We have been bombarded in recent past with indecent language and 
images over and over again. Between the use of an expletive by Bono at 
the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, Nicole Ritchie's string of expletives at 
the 2003 Billboard Awards, Janet Jackson's infamous performance during 
the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show, and innumerable instances of 
graphic sexual broadcasts by radio ``shock jocks,'' parents want and 
demand help.
  There is a clear need to provide the FCC with increased authority to 
hold all parties responsible for their actions. H.R. 3717 targets 
broadcast indecency by doing the following: Number one, it raises the 
maximum penalty cap for broadcast stations, networks, and performers to 
$500,000 for each indecency violation.
  Number two, it sets out specific factors the FCC must consider when 
setting fines so that the FCC must examine whether the violator is a 
small or large broadcaster, a company or an individual, and what entity 
is responsible for the indecent programming.

                              {time}  1115

  Three, it streamlines the FCC enforcement process for networks and 
individuals who ``willfully and intentionally'' put indecent material 
over broadcast airwaves so that the FCC can prosecute on the first 
instance, instead of having to wait for a second violation. Now 
everyone, including performers, will be held responsible for their 
action from the get-go.
  Four, the bill requires the FCC to complete an action on indecency 
complaints within 270 days of receipt so that complaints do not 
languish at the FCC. In addition to collecting fines for indecency, the 
bill gives the FCC the authority to require broadcasters to air public 
service announcements to reverse harm from indecent programming.
  This is an idea that came from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), and it is a very good idea.
  Five, it requires the FCC to take indecency violations into account 
during license applications, renewals and modifications.
  This idea came from the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson).
  Number six, after three indecency violations, the bill would require 
the FCC to hold a hearing to consider revoking the broadcast station 
license, the gravest of penalties for a broadcaster. That idea, among 
others, came from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Seventh and finally, the bill requires the FCC to report annually to 
Congress on the progress it is making as a result of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 makes great strides in our effort to clean up 
the broadcast airwaves and return them to the decent Americans of our 
country. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Before I conclude, let me say that on the Schakowsky amendment I am 
going to strongly oppose that particular amendment. I think it is 
absolutely constitutional that performers themselves can be held 
accountable in the first instance and not after the second instance 
after the so-called ``warning ticket'' approach. So I will strongly 
oppose the Schakowsky amendment and then strongly support passage of 
the final bill.
  I thank the chairman for his strong leadership on the bill.

[[Page 4043]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Los Angeles, California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I want all to know that I 
rise in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 
2004, but I am sorry that this was a closed rule on that bill. There 
are a couple of points I wanted to make.
  I have received a letter from the American Federation of Television 
and Radio Artists on behalf of 80,000 actors, broadcast journalists, 
announcers, disc jockeys, and sound recording artists saying that they 
are asking us to reject the provisions of the bill that would fine 
individual performers and announcers for the programming decisions 
controlled and implemented by the broadcast licensees. And I would ask 
my colleagues to think about that particular provision. I understand we 
have already voted on the rule.
  The next point I wanted to make is that since the FCC has already 
allowed the major networks to own up to 45 percent of the market, I 
feel that that is the root cause for some of this indecency that we 
hear through the media. And it is important for us to recognize that 
this bill taps into the underlying anger of over 2 million individuals 
who wrote to the FCC last summer opposing its relaxation of media 
ownership rules. And I just want to mention some shocking statistics 
that illustrate the connection between indecency and media 
concentration.
  The 1996 Communications Act cleared the way for relaxing some media 
ownership limits. Since then, complaints received by the FCC regarding 
indecent programs on television have jumped from 26 in the year 2000 to 
217 in the year 2003. Clear Channel Communications Incorporated, the 
Nation's largest radio chain with 11 percent of the Nation's total 
studios and stations, has received about 52 percent of the fines that 
the FCC has imposed. Viacom's Infinity station, about 2 percent of all 
stations, has received 28 percent of the FCC's fines. So the fact is 
when big media gets bigger and the race for audiences turns to the 
lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the broadest 
possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from quality 
programming and the principles of ``diversity, localism and 
competition'' crucial for the service of the public interest.
  Finally, I was in support of the Schakowsky amendment that would have 
exempted individuals from increases in indecency fines. And hearing 
from the industry, they are very upset about the possibility. So I am 
hoping that we can clear up some of these issues in another piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act of 2004. While I support giving the Federal 
Communication Commission greater authority in the enforcement of 
indecency rules, I don't believe it addressed the root cause of 
indecency in media, namely, the current trend of unfettered media 
conglomeration and its impact on creative voices.
  I think it is important for us to recognize that this bill taps into 
the underlying anger of the over 2 million individuals who wrote to the 
FCC last summer opposing its relaxation of media ownership rules, 
individuals who were truly turned off by a dumb-down media culture that 
has failed to serve the public interest. The bottom line is, a 
consolidated media market controlled by profit-driven conglomerates are 
bound to produce indecent, shock-value programming for the sake of 
viewership.
  I just want to mention some shocking statistics that illustrate the 
connection between indecency and media concentration. The 1996 
Telecommunications Act cleared the way for relaxing some media 
ownership limits. Since then, complaints received by the FCC regarding 
indecent programming on television have jumped from 26 in 2000, to 217 
in 2003. Clear Channel Communications Inc., the Nation's largest radio 
chain with 11 percent of the Nation's total stations, has received 
about 52 percent of the fines the FCC has imposed. Viacom's Infinity 
Stations, about 2 percent of all stations, has received 28 percent of 
the FCC's fines.
  The fact is, when big media gets bigger, and the race for audiences 
turns to the lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the 
broadest possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from 
quality programming and the principles of ``diversity, localism, and 
competition'' crucial for the service of public interest.
  That is why the Senate this week adopted a provision to impose a 1-
year moratorium on the FCC's new media-ownership rules pending the 
outcome of a new GAO study on the connection between media indecency 
and ownership. I am very disappointed that a similar amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) was rejected by the Rules 
Committee. Mr. Chairman, while I am prepared to vote for the bill, I 
strongly urge this Chamber to allow a thorough debate on the issue of 
media consolidation.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), who offered a very constructive bipartisan 
amendment that is part of the package of this bill.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
work on this legislation.
  I want to acknowledge up front that I am a broadcast licensee, owner 
and operator of five radio stations, and I am very supportive of this 
bill in this form.
  It was time that the broadcast community cleaned up the airwaves, 
that owners took the responsibility to make sure that the talent on 
their shows operated within the bounds of the law. It is important to 
note that this legislation does not change the standards that have 
always been on the books and recognized by the courts when it comes to 
clean talk on the airwaves.
  This legislation, though, gives the FCC the fining authority it needs 
to deal with egregious violations of the law and also the incentive it 
needs to act, and act more appropriately.
  For those of us who are small-community broadcasters, it also 
recognizes that the fine should fit and the punishment should be fair; 
and, therefore, it recognizes both the role of affiliates and their 
liabilities versus those providing the programming, as well as having 
the FCC recognize market size when levying fines. Because, indeed, a 
fine of a half a million dollars on a small-market broadcaster could 
spell bankruptcy, when on a large conglomerate, it may be just another 
cost of doing business.
  I want to conclude my remarks this morning by having Americans and 
Members in this Chamber recognize fully that the actions that are taken 
by some broadcasters are not the actions taken by most broadcasters. 
Allowing indecent, profane, and obscene language on stations is 
something most of us find offensive, just as most Americans do. 
Broadcasters have made enormous contributions to their communities, 
raising money for charity, helping in emergencies, and providing that 
vital communication link.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. I thank the Chairman for his 
support of the amendments that were included.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me time.
  I want to engage in colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  During a recent subcommittee hearing on broadcast indecency, we heard 
testimony that it is the Federal Communication Commission's policy that 
persons submitting complaints alleging indecent broadcast must submit a 
tape, transcript, or significant excerpt of the alleged indecent 
content or risk having the complaint dismissed.
  Do you recall that testimony?
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Yes, I do. The testimony was provided by Brent Bozell, 
President of the Parents Television Council. The FCC claims, however, 
that they no longer adhere to that policy.
  Mr. RUSH. I understand that it is the FCC's official position; 
however, unfortunately, the FCC's claim is incorrect. According to a 
March 2, 2004, letter from Chairman Powell to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), since 2001 the commission has 
dismissed 170 complaints for lack of a tape or transcript, including 
six already this year, 2004.
  Does the gentleman agree that this policy places an enormous and 
inappropriate burden on consumers who simply wish to file a complaint 
about indecent broadcast?

[[Page 4044]]


  Mr. UPTON. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), 
consumers should not be forced to record every program that they watch 
or listen to in order to submit a complaint to the FCC alleging 
indecent content. It is an outrage that the FCC continues its practice 
of dismissing consumer complaints for lack of a tape or transcript.
  Mr. RUSH. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, Mr. Chairman, on this 
matter. Do you agree that our committee must closely watch this issue 
and urge the FCC to change its policy statement in this matter?
  Mr. UPTON. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The committee will closely monitor the FCC's action to ensure that 
the FCC actually changes their policy in that regard, and I thank the 
gentleman for bringing this to our attention; and I look forward to 
working with him on this issue to make sure that that change, in fact, 
is made in order.
  Mr. RUSH. I thank my good friend and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet for his concern and assurance on 
this matter.
  That said, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717. For the past 
month, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has held numerous hearings 
on the issue of broadcast indecency. In those hearings, we heard from 
the FCC commissioners and the broadcasters on the enforcement of 
indecency rules. It became clear that the FCC has been neglectful in 
its duty in enforcing indecency rules. From 2000 to 2003, the 
commission has received 255,000 complaints on the subject of indecency, 
yet the commission had filed less than 10 notices of apparent 
liability. To add insult to injury, since its existence, the commission 
has yet to fine a broadcaster for airing language that is obscene and 
profane.
  As we can see, there has been a dereliction by the FCC of its duties. 
Some have argued that the commission needs additional authority from 
Congress to make a serious effort to stop indecency. That said, Mr. 
Chairman, I believe that H.R. 3717 will give the commission the 
ammunition it needs to do just that.
  The bill not only increases fines but compels the FCC to use its 
renewal and revocation processes to go after licensees, and it compels 
the FCC to act in a timely manner regarding consumer complaints.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the 
pervasiveness of violent programs on our airwaves. During our month-
long hearing discussing this issue, I offered and withdrew an amendment 
that would have required the FCC to include excessive violence in its 
definition of indecency.
  Study after study has shown that there may be a causal link between 
violence in the media and violence in society.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking 
member, have agreed to hold a separate hearing on this issue. Such a 
hearing is needed to focus the collective attention of this committee 
on detrimental effects of violence in the media as it relates to our 
children.
  Again, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
this wonderful bill, H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act. For the past month the Energy and Commerce Committee 
has held numerous hearings on the issue of broadcast indecency. In 
those hearings we heard from the FCC Commissioners and the broadcasters 
on the enforcement of the indecency rules. It became clear that the FCC 
had been neglectful in its duty in enforcing indecency rules. From 2000 
to 2003 the Commission had received 255,000 complaints on the subject 
of indecency yet the Commission had filed less then ten notices of 
apparent liability (NAL's). To add insult to injury, since its 
existence the Commission has yet to fine a broadcaster for airing 
language that is obscene or profane. As you see, there has been a 
dereliction by the FCC of its duties. Some have argued that the 
Commission needs additional authority from Congress to make a serious 
effort to stop indecency. That said, I believe H.R. 3717 would give the 
Commission the ammunition it needs to do just that. The bill not only 
increases fines but compels the FCC to use its renewal and renovation 
processes to go after licensees and it compels the FCC to act in a 
timely manner regarding consumer complaints.
  I would be remiss if I did not discuss the pervasiveness of violent 
programming on our airwaves. During our month long hearing discussing 
this issue I offered and withdrew an amendment that would have required 
the FCC to include excessive violence in the definition of indecency. 
Study after study has shown that there may be a causal link between 
violence in the media and violence in society. I am pleased that 
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Markey have agreed to have a separate 
hearing on this issue. Such a hearing is needed to focus the collective 
attention of this committee on the detrimental effects of violence in 
the media as it relates to our children.
  And lastly, as we give the FCC this increased power, I would like us 
to consider giving preference to socially and economically 
disadvantaged groups for the purchase of the revoked licenses.
  Again, I urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3717, the 
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, and compliment my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for bringing 
this important legislation to the Congress.
  Our Nation's television and radio airwaves have increasingly become 
inundated with indecent, obscene, and profane material. The recent 
Super Bowl half-time show was only the latest in a string of incidents 
to make front-page headlines. Other performers, celebrities, and shock 
jocks have coarsely invaded our homes with their language and their 
antics.
  Networks and entertainers must acknowledge that our liberties also 
require responsibility and that avoidance of this responsibility places 
our family and our children at risk.
  These incidents involving profanity, lewd behavior and language have 
been occurring with only a slap on the wrist or no response at all from 
the FCC. With current allowable fines of only a maximum of $27,500 per 
violation, there is very little incentive for broadcasters to follow 
the regulations when the rewards of higher ratings, due to their 
selection of programming, far outweigh those costs.
  H.R. 3717 will put some teeth behind the FCC's enforcement of their 
standards of indecency by increasing the maximum amount of fines to 
$500,000 per violation and will allow them to enforce their current 
regulations in a swift and fair manner by removing the warning after a 
first offense and a capped maximum fine of only $11,000 after the 
second offense.
  We must provide the FCC with the authority that they need to combat 
this wave of indecency. Our families and our children deserve nothing 
less.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3717.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I just wanted to point out that I have requested that the television 
industry increase its public service advertisements about the 
television rating system, and I am happy to report that many in the 
industry have agreed to provide much more public education about this 
technology in TV sets so it is easier for parents to be able to figure 
out how to program it and to provide just the level of protection which 
they want for the children in their home, at whatever particular age 
they may be.
  I also challenged the television networks to consider a couple of 
suggestions with respect to the broadcast of the ratings icon on the 
screen. I requested that the TV ratings icon appear not only at the top 
of a show but also after commercial breaks when the show resumes. That 
is because a lot of times people turn on the show after it has already 
started and they have no idea what the rating is. So I have asked

[[Page 4045]]

 them to actually put on the rating at each commercial break as well so 
that parents can see what the level of the rating is and make an 
adjustment for their own particular families.
  I also requested that the networks add a voice-over when the ratings 
appear to also better alert parents. The ABC television network readily 
agreed to both suggestions, as did Bud Paxon on behalf of his PAX 
network. The other three major networks, Fox, NBC and CBS, have 
indicated that they are considering it but have not yet committed to 
doing so. I hope that they join ABC in doing it because I think it is 
helpful, quite frankly, to give parents this kind of additional 
information.
  It does not detract from any network's ability to be able to put any 
programming on that they want. It just gives parents the information 
they need in order to shield their children from material which they 
believe may be inappropriate.
  I also challenged the cable industry, in addition to increasing their 
public service advertisements, to increase consumer awareness of the 
provisions of the 1992 Cable Act that permits any cable subscriber in 
America to request that the cable company block any one of the cable 
programs that they believe is inappropriate for their family. It is a 
right that every American has in terms of their relationship with their 
cable company, but no more than 1 percent of all Americans even know 
they have the right to have any one of these individual cable channels 
blocked from coming into their home, even if they have bought the whole 
other part of the cable package.
  I believe that if the cable industry made it clear in their bills, 
the information they give to consumers, that millions of American 
families would be much happier if they could take the whole cable 
package and then delete a couple of channels that they believe were too 
offensive for their young children and their family. I think it can be 
a real step forward, and I have received some very encouraging 
information from some of these cable networks that they will provide 
that option.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3717 
and the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) efforts to pass this act. 
Over the last several months, I have received hundreds of letters from 
frustrated constituents expressing their outrage over obscenity on our 
airwaves.
  They tell me it seems that every time they turn on their television 
or radio they have to cover their children's eyes and ears to protect 
them from profanity and obscenity. It is a disturbing feeling when one 
is afraid to leave their living room to check on dinner for fear that 
their children might be exposed to gross obscenity on television.
  My youngest child is still in high school; and as a dad, I would like 
to be there all the time for him, to turn off the television, to talk 
to him about why people say the things they do and to provide the 
guidance he needs; but we all have busy lives, and we know that it is 
not possible to be there every minute. As parents and as citizens, we 
should not be forced into a constant battle to protect our children 
from obscenity. We should have confidence that basic standards of 
common decency will be upheld.
  Several years ago, the Super Bowl half-time show featured characters 
from Disney and Peanuts. As we all know, this year's Super Bowl half-
time was quite the opposite. While there was a time when parents would 
be happy to see their children emulate their role models on the 
playground, today that would be a horrifying sight.
  With each inappropriate incident, networks weaken our standards of 
decency and blur our children's sense of propriety. This legislation 
will hold broadcasters accountable by ensuring that fines for broadcast 
indecency are not seen as just a cost of doing business. It has become 
much easier for broadcasters to ask for forgiveness rather than 
permission.
  At this point, our mandate as legislators is clear: stand up against 
the continued decline in standards of broadcast indecency and pass H.R. 
3717.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with thanks I accept 2 minutes from my 
dear friend.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation.
  Second of all, I congratulate my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his outstanding leadership in this 
matter. He has been long interested in this matter and has provided 
remarkably good leadership in this matter.
  I also commend my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Upton). He has 
served in this body with distinction and has provided extraordinary 
leadership here, also.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his new 
position and for his leadership in shepherding H.R. 3717 through the 
committee process.
  This is a bill which is bipartisan; and the committee has worked well 
in a bipartisan fashion which does great credit to the Members, and 
particularly the leadership of the committee, for having done so.
  Our constituents are fed up with the level of sex and violence on 
television and radio, as well as the lax attitude of the Federal 
Communications Commission's handling of decency complaints. Clearly, 
the commission has been asleep at the switch for some time.
  The bill sets a deadline by which the commission must act on consumer 
indecency complaints. It raises the penalties for that kind of 
misbehavior. It makes these matters subject to review in connection 
with license renewal, or makes it possible for the commission to do 
what they have now the power to do; and it encourages them so to do by 
seeing to it that this matter will be raised also at the time of 
license renewal.
  The bill raises fines by a significant amount. That is good. It also 
requires the commission to report annually to the Congress on the 
handling of these matters, something which will perhaps alert them to 
the need to proceed with greater vigor.
  I applaud the fact that the commission has developed a remarkable and 
acute sense of newly found virtue. This is good, and it is my hope that 
the commission will remain awake, alert and vigilant, although their 
history is significantly against that kind of prospect.
  In any event, I look forward to the bill being enacted into law. I 
commend my colleagues for the work they have done. I look forward to 
the prospect that this is going to see to it that free, over-the-air 
television will be something which we can see to it that our families 
in this country can have their children watch television without having 
to worry about the kind of situation that they will confront in terms 
of decency, profanity and other things which are unseemly and unsuited 
to the way in which most American parents wish to raise their kids.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I, again, commend my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the 
others for the outstanding job which they have done in presenting this 
bill to the House, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
good State of California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the 
time.
  I rise today in support of the legislation that he has brought to the 
floor. I do want to add my compliments to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) efforts and the gentleman from Michigan's 
(Mr. Dingell) and others. I think for the first time we have very 
clearly approached the root cause of this.
  As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and others have spoken, 
the broadcasters who have allowed the creeping profanity and indecency 
to enter our airwaves have done so on the

[[Page 4046]]

 basis of a conscious decision they have made, that is, they are 
trading that kind of language for the added revenue that comes from 
increased ratings. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) bill 
significantly increases the penalties for violation of existing FCC 
rules and regulations; and in that regard, I hope that it will go a 
long way towards abating this kind of activity.
  I have always felt that addressing the bottom line of our licensees 
would be an effective means of influencing their behavior, and I hope 
this works accordingly. I do think there remains a certain uncertainty 
as it relates to how the broadcasters shall address this issue having 
to do with exactly what is profane or what is not profane. I suspect 
that we will be dealing with that either with regulation at the FCC or 
here on the floor by statute in the days to come.
  It is really remarkable to see the connection between, if you will, 
the outside world or the private side, how our constituents communicate 
with those of us elected to the House or the Senate, in some cases, 
react to certain instances, and what actually transpires. As with many 
of the Members here, I have received not dozens, but hundreds, of 
communications regarding the, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) said, the creeping profanity.
  This is a great step in the right direction. I applaud the chairman 
for bringing it forward, and I thank him for the time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this bill, but it is only a partial step in the battle to clean up our 
airwaves.
  By increasing fines for broadcasters, we are addressing only a 
symptom of the problem, not the cause. We cannot ignore the correlation 
between indecency on our airwaves and the increased concentration of 
media ownership. It is not a perfect correlation, but it is a strong 
one.
  In recognition of that, our colleagues in the other body have 
improved this bill in several ways. I wish our colleagues in this 
Chamber had followed suit.

                              {time}  1145

  First, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I pushed for an 
amendment, not made in order, unfortunately, which would have addressed 
the true effects of media consolidation before moving forward with the 
FCC's newly relaxed rules. This amendment, introduced by Senator Dorgan 
and adopted in committee, calls for a GAO study, and it stays the new 
rules pending the completion of that study. I wish the leadership in 
this Chamber had allowed us to offer the same.
  Secondly, the Senate Commerce Committee also adopted an amendment, 
sponsored by Senator Hollings, which would take steps to ensure that 
parents can use V-chips to block violent programming. The bill would 
require either that programs be rated for content, so that they may be 
filtered with the V-chip, or that a ``safe harbor'' family hour be 
created so that violent programming is simply not televised when 
children are likely to be watching. My colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and 
I have introduced a companion bill in this Chamber.
  Mr. Chairman, at the root of all these efforts is the undeniable fact 
that we are losing control of our airwaves. I hear from constituents 
all the time saying, ``Where are the standards? How can I shield my 
children from inappropriate programming? And why are the people who put 
this on the air not held accountable?''
  They are right. Our communities virtually have no say in the quality 
of the programming they are subjected to on broadcast television. And 
the network executives in L.A. or New York do not seem to feel they owe 
them anything.
  As big media conglomerates get bigger, they are sinking to new lows. 
We are witnessing a race to the bottom as these networks seek to expand 
their influence through shock value instead of quality programming.
  The Super Bowl was only one example, Mr. Chairman. CBS may blame MTV 
for its infamous half-time spectacle, but the common denominator for 
both networks is their owner, Viacom. And the ``wardrobe 
malfunctions,'' or whatever you want to call these episodes, will not 
stop there.
  If we are serious about cleaning up our airwaves, we need to do what 
the American people are demanding: Give them back their local media. 
And we need to do much more than impose fines on the broadcasters that, 
even if they are increased, are hardly going to make these corporations 
bat an eye.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), an original cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for yielding me this time, but 
also for introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the broadcast of offensive language is a growing and 
disturbing trend. Members of the Parents Television Council, a group 
that monitors television broadcasts, filed 85,000 complaints about 
broadcast obscenity and indecency with the Federal Communications last 
year.
  The networks have pushed the limits of decency to the point that 
family-oriented programs and enjoyable American pastimes, such as the 
Super Bowl, are no longer safe for our children to watch.
  Unfortunately, the FCC has given television and radio stations too 
much power to broadcast behavior or language they believe will bring in 
the high ratings or advertising dollars. This undermines standards of 
common decency and impedes the ability of parents to raise their 
children free from exposure to profane language.
  Low fines for indecency only encourage more indecency. It has become 
apparent some performers will accept a small fine for offensive and 
crude behavior in return for the media attention its creates. This is 
one of the reasons I support this legislation that increases fines for 
indecent language on radio and television.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a constitutional issue. The Supreme Court 
has upheld the FCC's authority to regulate broadcasts. In fact, the 
court said ``Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most 
limited first amendment protection. Among the reasons is that 
broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children.''
  The entertainment industry has become increasingly isolated from the 
American people. We are still a Nation that believes in standards of 
common decency and respect for traditional values. This bill will help 
us uphold those values.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time is 
remaining on either side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 12\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 
22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), not only an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, but also one that came, before the Super Bowl, who sat 
through our first hearing, way back in January, to sit with the 
audience.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for introducing this bill. I think that 
is standard fare. You always thank people who author these. But, 
believe me, this is something that many citizens across this country 
greatly appreciate because it actually introduces some meaningful 
penalties for indecency, something that has been lacking for a long 
time.
  This bill, as I see it, is not really a reaction to the Super Bowl 
half-time show, as maybe the chairman pointed out. It is a reaction to 
the 240,000 complaints that were filed regarding indecency at the FCC 
in the year 2003. As a result of those 240,000 complaints, only three 
notices of violations, with minimal fines, were ever compacted. So, 
essentially, complaints of indecency have been largely ignored.

[[Page 4047]]

  Also, this is a reaction to the fact that Bono issued four epithets 
and no violation was found because he used these as adjectives. So also 
the FCC has suspended no broadcast licenses in the history of its 
existence.
  The Super Bowl half-time show, I think, did serve a purpose because 
it offended mainstream America. It gave tracks to the bill, and the 
outcry reached unparalleled proportions.
  I feel that the strength of a Nation is measured by its adherence to 
standards of decency and civil discourse. During the last few years, we 
have been embarked, as many have said, on a race to the bottom. The 
standard of decency in place for roughly 200 years of our Nation's 
history has been shattered, and this has been an alarming trend.
  DeTocqueville said, ``America is great because America is good.'' One 
of the greatest threats to our culture is that America will no longer 
be a decent, moral, good society. This bill will help reverse an 
alarming trend. I urge passage, and I would like to thank the 
committee, and particularly thank the authors.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), another original cosponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue in bringing 
this bill so rapidly to the floor.
  The Federal Communications Commission plays a very important role in 
protecting Americans, and particularly children, from indecent 
programming. The FCC has the statutory authority to enforce the laws 
that are on the books, but their enforcement has been inadequate and 
the tools that they have had at their disposal have also been 
insufficient. This bill today will help to change that situation.
  This legislation increases the fines from what was really a trivial 
amount, a cost-of-doing-business kind of fine, to a maximum of $500,000 
per violation. It also says that a broadcast company's record of 
indecency will be a factor when they apply to continue to get their 
free over-the-air license continued. And I hope that that gets the 
attention of the companies that are pushing the envelope with respect 
to indecency.
  It also increases the expectations for enforcement by the FCC. We 
have heard the numbers and the statistics, which are appalling, 
regarding the enforcement of these laws. Some of the complaints go 
unanswered or unaddressed for years. This bill establishes a shot clock 
of 270 days where the FCC has the obligation to take action when there 
is a complaint for indecency.
  I also think that this bill makes very clear, and this effort should 
make clear, that local affiliates have the right to decline to air 
programming which is inconsistent with community standards, even when 
it is not indecent or profane. In the hearings in our committee, we 
heard about local affiliates who felt as though they really did not 
have the leverage within the networks. This legislation shows they do 
have the leverage, they can exercise it, and we also will punish the 
networks if they fail to follow the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we have already had an effect on this 
industry. FCC enforcement was lax and, when imposed, was largely 
symbolic. We are changing that. But the real change will come in the 
board rooms and the general managers' offices and broadcast studios 
across this country when people decide to be responsible and to 
entertain rather than denigrate.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill certainly is fine, as far as it 
goes, but the fact is that higher fines are going to do nothing to 
mitigate the real problem, which is the concentration of power in the 
hands of a limited number of large corporations that believe they are 
outside the reach of the communities they serve.
  Communities determine standards of decency, and the most effective 
enforcement of those standards is through local ownership of television 
and radio stations. FCC fines, even in the millions, will not stop 
national broadcasters from lowering standards.
  Infinity stations, for instance, were fined $1.7 million to settle a 
series of indecency cases, but that did not stop them. On the contrary, 
just last year, they were fined for a radio contest for couples willing 
to perform sexually in public places in New York, Washington, D.C., and 
other cities with a different radio announcer following each couple and 
providing the play-by-play accounting of the activities.
  The House tried to do something about the core problem when it 
adopted, in a bipartisan manner, the Commerce, State, Justice 
appropriations bill, which had a provision to prevent the FCC from 
relaxing the established limits on network-owned television stations, 
and the Senate did the same thing. But at the last moment, in the dead 
of night, the White House convinced Republican congressional leaders to 
cave in to the special interest media conglomerates and they agreed to 
weaken the provision.
  So by all means, pass this bill, if you want. It will perhaps have a 
minor effect. But if you really want to do something to give 
communities the ability to stop this nonsense, you will take away from 
the FCC the ability to concentrate broadcasting power in the hands of a 
few corporations. That is what makes the system so fundamentally 
arrogant. That is what puts the system so far out of the reach of 
average citizens, who resent seeing this garbage.
  Until the Congress acts on that, it will be simply dealing with 
window dressing.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), an original cosponsor of the bill and, 
more importantly, a fellow dad.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your work, the whole 
House, the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their good work, 
the bipartisan work in response to what we have seen across the 
country, and that is a rising up of outrage of families and individuals 
saying ``enough.''
  Our Nation is better than this. We can do better than this. In our 
public airwaves and in the public square we can be decent. We do not 
have to glorify what is indecent. We do not have to be profane. We can 
entertain and enlighten without going to the worst among us or to the 
lowest common denominator.
  Today, we are passing legislation that reaffirms long-established 
constitutional standards of decency, and we are saying to the networks, 
and we are saying to the radio stations, you need to do better. There 
will be three strikes, three opportunities, and if you violate the 
decency standards three times, then you are in danger of losing your 
rights and privileges as a licensee. We are increasing the fines to say 
that there will be a cost, a significant cost of ignoring the common 
standards of decency.
  We hope that through this effort, we will see more corporate 
responsibility, as well as the common good and public responsibility to 
bring our standards back up; to affirm it, to establish standards over 
responsibility, and then have enforcement mechanisms of accountability.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation and in the best spirit of the 
Nation. We are decent people and a good Nation; and we want to 
maintain, preserve and protect that, for the country and our culture, 
for our communities and our families.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Michigan for the 
bipartisan spirit in which this is done, and look forward to having 
this legislation passed and signed into law.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the sentiments 
behind this bill. There is no question that indecency in the media is a 
disease that is infecting all of our society. The problem with this 
legislation, however,

[[Page 4048]]

 is that it deals only with the symptoms of the problem and not with 
the underlying cause.
  The underlying cause of indecency in the media and other problems 
that we are witnessing as Americans in our electronic media 
particularly across the country is the incredible consolidation of the 
ownership of the airwaves into fewer and fewer hands.
  On June 2, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. 
Powell, led an effort that was endorsed by his two Republican 
colleagues and opposed by the two Democrats which moved that 
consolidation effort even further so that now we are facing a situation 
whereby in any service area across the country, one corporation can own 
almost all of the radio stations, almost all of the television 
stations, the one daily newspaper and the cable television station, 
giving that corporate entity the power to control not only the 
entertainment but the critically important information that goes to the 
people who are served in that area.
  Mr. Powell's action is not a new phenomenon. This is something that 
we have been witnessing in this country since the mid-1980s. In fact, 
it was the Reagan FCC back in 1987 which began this consolidation 
effort in earnest. They also did something else: they took from the 
American people the right of ownership of the airwaves. Up to that 
point, we had something called the equal access clause or the fairness 
doctrine, which allowed American citizens if they disagreed with a 
political viewpoint expressed by the owner of a radio or television 
station to have that right expressed. But that right was taken away in 
1987 by the Reagan FCC, and that deprivation has been endorsed by this 
FCC. That is what needs to change. If we want indecency in the media, 
we have to attack what is really indecent, and what is indecent is this 
consolidation that is increasing and destroying the independence of the 
airwaves.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3717, 
the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, and I commend the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his leadership on this issue.
  Like many Americans, I was appalled to see the lack of enforcement of 
our Nation's Federal obscenity laws after the incident at the Golden 
Globe Awards program last January. Since that incident, the media has 
been engaged in an escalating race to the bottom to shock viewers. Most 
recently, this race took the form of the brazen display during the 
Super Bowl halftime show, an event watched by millions of men, women, 
and children. That shameless exhibition was disgraceful and had no 
place on the public airwaves.
  Thankfully, the FCC has started to take its enforcement 
responsibilities seriously. However, it has become frighteningly clear 
that the penalties currently on the books are not sufficient to deter 
this behavior. Those in the media who choose to air these obscene 
materials will not feel the sting of enforcement until the punishment 
is considered to be more than a simple cost of doing business.
  H.R. 3717 strengthens the penalties at the FCC's disposal to punish 
those that pollute the public airwaves with obscene and indecent 
materials. By increasing the fines that the FCC can impose from $27,500 
to $500,000, this legislation hits the violators where it hurts the 
most, their pockets.
  In addition, under current law, if an individual willfully violates 
indecency standards, the FCC must first warn the violator. However, 
this bill eliminates the warning requirement and increases the maximum 
penalty for individuals from $11,000 to $500,000 for the first offense.
  Furthermore, the bill requires the FCC to act in a timely manner. It 
requires the FCC to make a determination of whether an alleged offense 
constitutes obscene, indecent, or profane material within 180 days from 
date of the complaint.
  It is time to take a stand against the constant bombardment of 
obscene and profane materials into our living rooms. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), a cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Broadcast 
Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a Congressman today, but for 7 years I was a radio 
and television broadcaster in the State of Indiana. Let us be clear on 
this point, a point that was clear to me as a public broadcaster: the 
public airwaves are owned and governed by the American people. Everyone 
who operates in front of a microphone or a camera on the public 
airwaves knows that they have to do so under the obligations in the 
family hours of public broadcasting that have been set and upheld by 
the courts over the decades.
  This is not a burden. Eighteen hours a week for over 6 years I hosted 
a talk radio program, and I lived within the standards that have been 
established and upheld by the courts. Thanks to the leadership of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the ranking member, now we have 
legislation that will put real teeth behind these standards, and I 
strongly support it. The opponents say this is an issue of free speech. 
This is not about free speech. This is about decent speech living 
within the constitutional standards that every broadcaster should hold 
on the public airwaves. I urge strong support for the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act of 2004.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), an original cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his 
leadership and his crafting this bill which underscores the principle 
that those who have been given multi-billion dollar assets in the form 
of public airwaves for free, courtesy of the taxpayers, owe in return 
at least some consideration of the taxpaying audience and the public 
interest they purport to serve.
  I like free enterprise and the opportunity for every business to turn 
a profit. I support unlimited artistic creativity. None of these 
provide a reason for multi-billion dollar spectrum subsidies for 
profit-making entertainment, particularly when it is indecent, obscene 
and profane. While others in telecommunications pay for their slice of 
the airwaves, the broadcasting industry has been given multi-billion 
dollar slices of the public airwaves for free.
  In the 1990s, every other industry that uses the airwaves, such as 
wireless phone companies, paid for their pieces of the airwaves through 
public auctions that generated billions in revenue for taxpayers. The 
broadcasting industry has paid nothing to the taxpayers for their 
continued free use of this valuable public asset.
  On top of that, every TV station owner was recently given more free 
bandwidth to convert to digital TV, and that additional loan spectrum 
has an estimated value of $100 billion. That is a payment from every 
man, woman, and child in America of $350.
  As we complete action on this bill, our attention turns naturally to 
the underlying question of whether taxpayers should continue the multi-
billion dollar subsidies of this obviously for-profit industry. It is 
my hunch that if we were to auction the broadcast spectrum without the 
free ride that such programming now gets, the market and consumers 
would not demand 184 channels of Howard Stern.
  Making for-profit TV pay for its spectrum and compete with other 
high-tech demands would be a far better way of dealing with the problem 
of indecent programming than government regulation of speech. I think 
this bill is welcome news.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, never would I have thought that defending 
the Constitution would be so lonely a job on the floor of the United 
States House of Representatives. Do not get me wrong, I believe in 
decency

[[Page 4049]]

 and Mary Poppins and all things nice; but what is at stake here is 
freedom of speech and the assault thereon.
  I become more and more concerned about the concentration of the media 
in the hands of so few players, that kind of media power concentrated 
in the hands of so few and influenced specifically by the far right 
wing and religious right in this country.
  We talk about the President and the Presidency, and we say that the 
President has a bully pulpit, and he does. That does not concern me. 
What concerns me is the bullyism and the bullying that is going on. 
When networks and stations and people-owned medias are afraid to be 
critical of the administration, to impose a fine on speech that you do 
not like of a half a million dollars a shot, multiplied by 30 or 300 
stations, does not have a chilling effect. It has a freezing-out effect 
where people will be afraid to speak out.
  It is not for us to put limits on free speech. The public decides 
what they want to listen to and wants to hear. They can change the 
channel, they can change the station, they can turn it off. To talk 
about motherhood and breast feeding as something that is good is fine, 
but people are offended by a breast? Is that obscene? Maybe it was in 
poor taste at the time, but is it obscene?
  That Howard Stern on the radio would be threatened with extinction 
from broadcast because he did not hang up in time on somebody that 
called in, that was not the issue. The issue is that he is beginning to 
speak out against the President and the administration, and he is 
paying the price because of the pressure on the media by the President 
and his media cronies.
  This concentration of the media denies the public access to the right 
to speak out. It is not just speech that we agree with and we think is 
pretty that we have to tolerate. The test of freedom of speech is if we 
tolerate ugly speech, obnoxious speech, and speech that we disagree 
with. And saying that we are protecting the country and the children, 
what about personal responsibility? Everybody should protect their own 
children from what they do not want to listen to or see.
  These become weapons of mass communication, and no one will own them 
except those who have the hands on the levers of power in the White 
House and their friends.
  That is what we find obscene? What is obscene is public officials 
lying to the public, lying about public policy, lying about education. 
It is about not providing enough money for AIDS or cancer; that is what 
is obscene in this country. We need people to defend our Constitution. 
We need people to defend freedom of speech, and that is really what is 
at stake here. This is going to become a very dark day in American 
history. We are going down the slippery slope of limiting our 
Constitution and the protections that it gives to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I for one will be voting against this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gillmor), again, an original cosponsor of the legislation.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see that today, after a 
firestorm of public criticism, we have an increasing appetite, both in 
Congress and the FCC, for punishing those who repeatedly flout the 
rules, and we have before us a strong measure, one that will boost 
maximum fine to $500,000, make it easier for the FCC to fine performers 
rather than just their employers and threaten to strip licenses of 
repeat offenders.
  I should also point out that before and after the Super Bowl 
incidents, my office received over 500 e-mails from my district 
concerning indecent broadcasts. I would like to share the message of 
just one of those constituents.
  ``I am very glad to see you are taking action to protect our kids 
from indecent, profane, vulgar and tasteless programming. Just when I 
thought that TV couldn't get any worse, I witnessed the appalling 
display at the half-time show of the Super Bowl. My 11-year old son and 
15-year-old daughter were speechless. Please know that I am behind you 
100 percent. I hope that this bill will strengthen the power of the FCC 
and allow them to penalize those sponsors.''
  I think the American people have had enough of ``costume reveals'' 
and ``wardrobe malfunctions,'' and I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  The big question on this bill is why now? There are enough laws in 
place and regulations to deal with this issue. I feel that some of the 
good, well-intentioned Members have been caught up in this desire to 
all of a sudden clear up the airwaves. I believe it is a distraction. 
It is a weapon of mass distraction, to keep us away from the real 
issues at hand.
  The fact is that this is part, in my opinion, of the continuing 
thinking of the PATRIOT Act, the philosophy of the PATRIOT Act, that 
says we will read your e-mails, we will find out what you take out from 
the library, we will hold you in detention without charges or a lawyer, 
and we will then tell you what you can listen to on the radio.
  Now, let us understand something: The target here is coming from the 
political and religious right, and it is directed only at that which 
they think is bad anti-American or indecent. Right-wing radio, which 
demonizes liberals, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice and 
animal rights activists, they are fine. They will not be touched. And 
let me, for the record, say that I support their right to say whatever 
they want about me and other liberals and Democrats and minorities. 
They can say whatever they want. But what we are doing in this country 
is curtailing only people who are saying something else.
  The main target these days is Howard Stern. Now, what does Howard 
Stern have to do with this issue and the political agenda? Well, for 
years he supported the administration on the war, he supported the 
administration on capital punishment, he supported the administration 
on just about everything.
  In the last couple of months, he has had a change of heart and 
started opposing the war, started opposing the opposition to research, 
opposing the opposition to pro-choice, and, all of a sudden, he is in 
deeper trouble than he has ever been before.
  How else can we explain that the day before his bosses, Clear 
Channel, were to face a Congressional committee, they fired him from 
six markets throughout this country? The FCC has been complaining about 
his locker humor jokes for years. Some people have suggested that he 
was not in good taste for years. But now, the big bang to get him off 
the air. He is left now on Infinity Radio, and he says he will be gone 
in about another 2 weeks.
  Why? Was he okay when he was supporting the administration and in 
trouble, and how did Clear Channel decide to knock out its number one 
money maker one day before facing Congress? I wish I was the telephone 
company and could have heard those phone calls coming in with the 
political pressure.
  My friends, this is a dangerous time. This bill should be defeated, 
if, for no other reason, than to send a message that there is something 
larger here at work than simply something you do not like. What I do 
not like may be something you like and vice versa. The best protection 
we have is not this bill. Just turn the channel, switch the station.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke last night with our former chairman, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). He wishes that he was going to 
be here today, but he is preparing himself for cancer surgery next 
week. But I know that he would very much like to cast votes on every 
one of the recorded votes that we have the balance of the afternoon.
  I want to remind my colleagues that we do not change the standards. 
That

[[Page 4050]]

 is not what this bill does. It strictly enforces the standards that 
are already on the books.
  I told this story in my first hearing back in January before the 
Super Bowl. My staff prepared this broadcast indecency briefing 
materials book for me. Inside this book are the transcripts of 
broadcasters that have been fined for broadcasting indecent material. 
The material that is in this book was all on radio, it was not on TV. 
But what alarmed me more than anything else was the series of repeat 
offenders, whether they be in Detroit, Chicago, Washington or Los 
Angeles, and all broadcast on the public airwaves.
  When I read through this book, I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed 
for the fellow that was sitting next to me on the airplane, because I 
had to read it like this. I had to shield the material in this book, 
the transcripts, that were fined thousands of dollars.
  I made a mistake that day, Mr. Chairman. I read through the book, it 
was a long flight, we had terrible weather. In fact, frankly that day 
when we landed back at DCA, I thought we had gone back to Detroit, 
there was such bad weather here.
  I looked through a lot of material, and I left it by mistake in the 
pocket in the seat that was in front of me. I walked off the plane, 
went back through the security, and got all the way to my car when I 
realized this book was still on the plane. Now, with the new security 
arrangements, I could not go back to the plane to get this book.
  It has got my name on it, ``Chairman Upton, broadcast indecency 
briefing materials.'' Man, was I embarrassed, to go back into the 
Northwest Airline ticket line and ask someone to go retrieve that book. 
And, yes, they had found it. They saw my name, and they were very 
chagrined to get it back to me. But, thank goodness, I did get it back, 
and I do not think anybody read some of the material. But it is public 
record, and this stuff, this XXX smut stuff, should never be broadcast 
on the public airwaves.
  I was asked the question by the press when we introduced our bill 
several weeks ago, ``Do you think, Mr. Upton, that your legislation is 
going to take this stuff down, that it will increase somehow the FCC's 
enforcement division?''
  I thought about it, and I said, ``You know, I hope not. I hope that 
this legislation will send a message to the broadcasters and to the 
talent that is making these indecent remarks,'' and more than just a 
word, if you come over here and read these transcripts, it is more than 
a word, it is page, after page, after page, ``that we can get this 
stuff stopped with this legislation.''
  I welcome the opportunity to work with my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Together, we fashioned a very bipartisan 
bill every step of the way, from the calling of the witnesses to the 
questioning to the amendments, every step of the way, and I am pleased 
that the other body is working on that same procedure, where, again, 
they voted 34 to 0 earlier this week to pass similar legislation.
  Our bill that passed 49 to 1 is a credit to this institution and to 
the Members on both sides who care about the public airwaves, to make 
sure that this stuff is not broadcast, and we send a message, whether 
it be to the shock jock or the DJ or the person with the finger on the 
pause button at one of those awards, whether it be the Academy Awards, 
Golden Globes or whatever else, we are going to make an impact, and we 
are going to let our families know that this stuff has got to stop.
  This bill does it. It is not an infringement of first amendment 
rights. It has all been certified, made legitimate from the courts of 
the land, from the highest court of the land down to the lowest court, 
and needs a positive vote here this afternoon.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, it's about time.
  That's what my constituents are telling me. They correctly note the 
gradual degradation of the quality and decency of programming on TV and 
radio--and I agree, it's about time Congress acted.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3717, I think it's important to note 
that we introduced this bill prior to the Super Bowl. Some people are 
blaming Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake for Congressional action on 
indecency, but really the Super Bowl halftime show was simply the 
proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
  It's sort of like cooking a frog in a pot of boiling water. Put him 
in when it's lukewarm, and slowly turn up the temperature, he'll be 
cooked by dinner. Throw him into a boiling pot, however, and he'll jump 
right out. I'm afraid we've let this sneak up on us to the point where 
we're almost cooked.
  I'm not here sharing recipes from Congressman Tauzin's Cajun 
cookbook, I'm talking about how we have sat idly by as programming over 
the public's airwaves has gone to the dogs. The nudity of the Super 
Bowl halftime show has justly raised the ire of American families, and 
we are right to demand that people act in a civil manner when they are 
afforded access to the public's airwaves. Mr. Chairman, it is about 
time Congress acted and I'm proud to be part of that effort. I urge 
passage of H.R. 3717.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support 
of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004. As an original co-
sponsor of this legislation, I agree that we must provide the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) with the resources it needs to 
effectively enforce existing laws regarding indecent broadcasts. 
However, I am concerned that giving the FCC the authority to levy 
exorbitant fines against individuals will have a chilling effect on the 
exercise of free speech protected under the First Amendment.
  Clearly, the FCC should be able to hold individuals responsible for 
breaching the public trust by violating decency standards in the same 
way it holds broadcasting entities accountable for what they put on the 
airwaves. Nonetheless, opening the door to potentially ruinous fines of 
up to a half a million dollars for individuals, including artists, 
raises the specter of state sponsored censorship. Will the federal 
government decide to silence certain individuals in the future for 
political reasons? Under this bill, it has the authority to do just 
that.
  As this legislation is considered by the Senate, I would hope that 
this concern is duly addressed and resolved in Conference with the 
House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to address my 
colleagues on this overlooked but critical aspect of what is overall a 
good and necessary piece of legislation.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3717, 
the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.
  Over the past few months, I have received nearly 2,000 e-mails, phone 
calls and letters from my constituents expressing their displeasure 
with content of TV programs. My constituents are telling me enough is 
enough. When broadcasters violate indecency rules and a complaint is 
filed, my constituents want it to be taken seriously by the 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 family 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.
  I think this legislation addresses many of my constituents' concerns. 
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, this will now trigger a hearing 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.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support to the Schakowsky 
amendment to H.R. 3717, which would exempt individuals from increase in 
indecency fines. While I support the goals of H.R. 3717 in giving the 
Federal Communication Commission more authority to enforce indecency 
rules, I don't believe individual performers and artists should be 
threatened by the same penalties imposed on

[[Page 4051]]

 multi-billion dollar corporations, who have the ultimate control on 
programming decisions.
  I believe the provisions within H.R. 3717 to fine individuals would 
constitute a dangerous chilling effect on artistic expression and a 
threat to our first amendment rights. It is also completely 
unnecessary, since broadcast licensees and networks are responsible for 
programming contents and the decision to air, not the individual 
artists. Why else would networks start implementing the so-called 
``five second delay'' that would remove any objectionable content 
before it is broadcasted? The broadcasters understand that they are the 
ones responsible for the contents they air, because they are the ones 
who eventually profit from the controversies generated by offensive, 
indecent, and dumb-down programming.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Congresswoman 
Shakowsky's amendment that would prevent he broadcasters from 
scapegoating individual artists and hold them truly responsible in the 
enforcement of indecency rules.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717, 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 of forms of media has 
reached a point where Congress has no choice but to act.
  Many people first became aware of this problem while they were 
watching the Super Bowl, but this is not a new problem.
  Whether it is television, movies, video games, or the Internet, you 
cannot get away from it, and it is getting worse.
  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 in 
the media.
  A growing body of evidence suggests that these messages can be 
harmful to children's development.
  That is why I submitted an amendment that would call on the Surgeon 
General to produce an annual report assessing the impact of violent 
media content on children.
  Although my amendment was not accepted I hope the Surgeon General 
will hear us today and understand that Congress takes these issues very 
seriously and that we demand to know more.
  That is also why I created the bipartisan Congressional Sex and 
Violence in the Media Caucus last October with my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Tom Osborne.
  We will be a strong voice within Congress to reduce violent and 
sexual content in the media.
  We will identify ways to work effectively in Congress and in our 
districts to prevent violence by and against children through 
legislation, education, outreach, and advocacy.
  Just this Tuesday, we introduced H.R. 3914, the Children's Protection 
from Violent Programming Act, along with Congressman David Price.
  Our bill would require the FCC to assess the effectiveness of the V-
chip to determine if it effectively protects children from television 
violence.
  If the study shows that the V-chip is not effective, then it requires 
the FCC to create a ``safe harbor'' so that violent programming is not 
televised when children are likely to be watching.
  I am proud to have received the endorsement of the Parents Television 
Council and the Consumers Union.
  Last year I re-introduced the Protect Children from Video Game Sex 
and Violence Act, H.R. 669, which would impose penalties on those who 
rent or sell video games with violent or sexual content to minors.
  It is wrong that our children are being exposed to this kind of 
violence at an age when their minds and values are still being formed. 
They play these games when many of them cannot distinguish fantasy from 
reality. Yet today's most popular games are full of senseless acts of 
sex and violence that brainwash our kids.
  These games show people having sex with prostitutes, car-jacking 
soccer moms, using illegal drugs, decapitating police officers, and 
killing innocent people as they beg for mercy. If that isn't enough, 
games like BMX Triple X even show live video footage of naked 
strippers. Is that what we really want our kids to be watching?
  Let me be clear. It is the responsibility of parents to raise their 
children and determine what they watch on television or what kinds of 
games they buy. But when children see these things when they are 
watching the Super Bowl or when they can walk into their neighborhood 
store and buy video games with mature content, a parent is cut out of 
the process.
  Some will tell you that early exposure to violence has no harmful 
effects, but a growing body of academic research tells a different 
story.
  Several of the Nation's most respected public health groups have 
found that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in 
aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviors, particularly in children.
  But we have to go beyond facts and figures. What does this mean for 
our kids?
  We are at the beginning of a long and difficult battle for the 
hearts, the minds, and the souls of our children.
  I hope that other Members of Congress and the public will continue to 
work to protect our children from these harmful materials.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act and commend 
Representative Upton for this initiative to ``clean up'' our Nation's 
airwaves.
  In response to a number of recently televised events, I have received 
a deluge of complaints and comments from my constituents in New Jersey 
who are fed up with the offensive and indecent programming invading 
their homes through television and radio. With their thoughts in mind I 
cosponsored this legislation to let it be known: broadcasters offering 
irresponsible and indecent material--especially at times when our 
children are likely watching or listening--should be held accountable 
for their actions.
  H.R. 3717 would increase the penalty the FCC can assess for 
violations of broadcast indecency, obscenity and profanity laws from 
$27,500 to $500,000 per violation. The current fine has become a mere 
cost of business for many of the large broadcast companies. Today, 
Congress, on behalf of America's families, is sending a message to the 
industry that this kind of disregard is not going to be tolerated and 
hit them where it hurts--in their pockets.
  It is time we act to ensure that every family may watch broadcast 
television programming free of indecency, obscenity and profanity. I 
believe this legislation takes the right approach. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative and 
vote yes for H.R. 3717.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Broadcast 
Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 3717. The use of obscenity, which has 
recently been so casually used on our public airwaves for the entire 
country to witness, should not and cannot be tolerated.
  As a parent, I share the concerns of many regarding the level of 
offensive television and radio programs that are transmitted into our 
homes. The recent violations that have occurred disgusted not only me, 
but damage our society. Families should be able to turn on the 
television or radio without worrying that obscene programming will 
negatively impact our children.
  This important legislation calls for tougher fines and enforcement 
penalties for obscene broadcasts. Shameless acts are inexcusable and 
should be disciplined to ensure that they will not continue and will 
not be tolerated.
  I have received over one thousand letters, emails and phone calls 
from outraged constituents regarding obscene TV and radio broadcasts in 
recent months. We cannot accept anything less than an effective 
solution to this problem; we will not be satisfied until those who are 
responsible have been reprimanded, and we can be assured this kind of 
behavior will not continue.
  We must give parents the peace of mind that the programming available 
to their children on television and radio today is appropriate.
  I urge all members to support this legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, public decency on the airwaves 
should be a subject on which we all agree. Alabama citizens, like the 
vast majority of Americans, respect and value the meaning of decency, 
and appreciate public institutions that reflect the common values of 
our society.
  But what happens when one or more of those institutions repeatedly 
violate those standards of decency? In the past year, we have seen one 
or more of the major broadcast networks repeatedly and blatantly 
violate the Federal Communications Commission standards for decency, 
and openly flaunt the laws so clearly upheld in the courts.
  CBS's halftime show during the 2004 Super Bowl was a new low for 
television, Mr. Speaker. Watched by nearly 100 million Americans, as 
well as my family and children, this 30-minute fantasy of filth managed 
to break all standards of decency, and brazenly shattered all concepts 
of responsibility and accountability for our Nation's public 
broadcasters.
  Mr. Chairman, this must stop. It's time we hold the broadcasters 
accountable for their decisions and help take out the televised trash

[[Page 4052]]

 that continues to invade our homes. H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act of 2004, will help turn the tide. The legislation 
brings accountability for those broadcasters who follow the rules, as 
well as penalties for those, like CBS during the Super Bowl, knowingly 
choose to violate them.
  H.R. 3717 increases the FCC's penalties for broadcasting obscene, 
indecent, and profane language to $275,000 for each violation or each 
day of a continuing violation. The bill also limits the total amount 
assessed for any continuing violation to $3 million for any single act 
or failure to act.
  As a co-sponsor of this bi-partisan legislation, I am pleased 
Congress has chosen to bring this to the House floor today. Let me be 
clear Mr. Chairman: I am not an advocate of censorship. Although I may 
find the type of programming seen during the 2004 Super Bowl and the 
2003 Golden Globe Awards disgusting and disturbing, we must always work 
hard to defend the cherished freedoms so clearly outlined in our 
Constitution, including a healthy and free press.
  But when those institutions that are charged with upholding the 
public trust refuse to live up to their responsibilities, someone must 
draw the line. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 helps 
address the continuing degradation on the broadcast airwaves and helps 
send a clear message to the broadcast industry that Alabama families, 
like the rest of American families, have had enough.
  Programs like the Super Bowl should be celebrations, not cesspools, 
Mr. Speaker. It is time we as a Congress rise to this occasion and pass 
this bill, and help stop the recklessness that has so unnecessarily 
invaded our homes.
  Thank you and congratulations to you, Mr. Upton, for your work in 
bringing this importance piece of legislation to the House today.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, like most Americans, I am deeply disturbed 
by the decline of basic decency on our public airwaves. A new low was 
probably reached during the half-time show of the recent Super Bowl. 
It's incredible that parents should have to monitor the content of a 
football game to protect their children. The groundswell for change has 
been gathering for some time now. In the last few months alone, I have 
received more than one thousand constituent letters expressing concern 
about profanity and indecency on the airwaves. The message has been 
received, loud and clear.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Broadcast Decency 
Enforcement Act. The bill holds violating stations accountable for 
trashing our precious public airwaves and hits purveyors where it 
matters the most, in the wallet. Currently, an FCC indecency violation 
carries a maximum $27,500 fine, which hardly threatens a multi-million 
dollar station. This bill increases the fine to a more fitting 
$500,000. Repeat violators will find themselves on a very long and 
expensive trip. The FCC will also be given authority to hold hearings 
on stripping the licenses of repeat offenders.
  It's important that we act because even a small blow struck for 
decency makes a difference. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments 
on the Child Online Protection Act, which I helped to write. This is a 
law we approved to prevent kids from being exposed to Internet 
pornography. I have also been working with my Democrat colleague 
Charles Gonzalez on the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. It's long past 
time that attitudes about decency started changing in this country.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3717

       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 2004''.

     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.

     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

[[Page 4053]]

       ``(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 forfeiture penalty has been determined by the 
     Commission or an administrative law judge pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b), and such penalty is 
     not under review, and has not been reversed, by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction,

     then, notwithstanding section 504(c), 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 forfeiture penalty has been determined by the 
     Commission or an administrative law judge pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of section 503(b), and such penalty is 
     not under review, and has not been reversed, by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction,

     then, notwithstanding section 504(c), 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 forfeiture penalty has been determined by the 
     Commission or an administrative law judge pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of section 503(b), and such penalty is 
     not under review, and has not been reversed, by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction,

     then, notwithstanding section 504(c), 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 annual report submitted by the Federal Communications 
     Commission after the date of enactment of this Act shall, in 
     accordance with section 4(k)(2) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 154(k)(2)), include 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;
       (D) the amount paid by the licensee; and
       (E) in instances where the licensee refused to pay, whether 
     the Department of Justice brought an action in Federal court 
     to collect the penalty.

     SEC. 11. 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. 12. 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute is in order except those printed in House 
Report 108-436. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-436.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Upton:
       In subsection (d) of section 503 of the Communications Act 
     of 1934, as added by section 7 of the bill, strike paragraph 
     (2) and insert the following:
       ``(2) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment 
     of such forfeiture penalty, and such order has become final,
       In the matter that follows paragraph (2) of section 503(d) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by section 7 of 
     the bill, strike ``, notwithstanding section 504(c),''.
       In paragraph (5) of section 309(k) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as added by section 8 of the bill, strike 
     subparagraph (B) and insert the following:

[[Page 4054]]

       ``(B) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment 
     of such forfeiture penalty, and such order has become final,
       In the matter that follows subparagraph (B) of section 
     309(k)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by 
     section 8 of the bill, strike ``, notwithstanding section 
     504(c),''.
       In paragraph (1) of section 312(h) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as added by section 9 of the bill, strike 
     subparagraph (B) and insert the following:
       ``(B) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment 
     of such forfeiture penalty, and such order has become final,
       In the matter that follows subparagraph (B) of section 
     312(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by 
     section 9 of the bill, strike ``, notwithstanding section 
     504(c),''.
       In section 10, insert ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
     (C) of paragraph (7), strike ``; and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (D) of such paragraph and insert a period, 
     strike subparagraph (E) of such paragraph, and after such 
     paragraph insert the following new paragraphs:
       (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.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 554, 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished whip of the House, an original 
cosponsor of our legislation, and once a proud member of our proud 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, with any luck, a future member of the 
chairman's subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the great work the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton) did on this bill, bringing this bill to the floor at this 
time. I also want to say how much I appreciate the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton), the new chairman of our committee, moving quickly to 
get this legislation to the floor, and also to join my colleagues in 
our appreciation for and our concern about our former chairman, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), as he and his family deal with a 
health crisis right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is a bill that we need to do. The 
gentleman's amendment is one that improves the bill and clarifies the 
process through which people would have to go if they are subject to 
the penalties of the bill.
  I think the penalties here, the enhanced penalties we heard from 
many, many people, that the current penalties just are not a deterrent. 
Not only are the penalties now more in the range that they become a 
real thing for people who are given custody, temporary custody, of the 
airwaves to think about, but there is also the possibility they could 
actually lose their license if they become repeat offenders.
  Anybody can have something happen on one occasion that they do not 
expect to happen, do not anticipate happening, do not approve, are 
embarrassed by, but the gentleman's bill makes the case that these 
airwaves do belong to the American people, that this is commercial 
airspace. If repeatedly somebody chooses to try to benefit financially 
by what they put on the air that goes beyond the bounds of decency, 
goes beyond their agreement when they are given custody and right to 
use these airwaves, I think this bill and the gentleman's clarifying 
amendment is an amendment that the House needs to deal with.
  We all know that it was the Super Bowl half-time show that sort of 
brought this issue to everybody's attention in this current context, 
but we also know that if you watched the Super Bowl, if you were 
watching sort of halfway as I was the half-time show, that we see so 
much there drifting beyond where we need to be in family entertainment. 
There are plenty of opportunities in other kinds of entertainment that 
are not on the airwaves used by commercial television and radio for 
that.
  I appreciate the gentleman's hard work in bringing this bill to the 
floor in such important and quick fashion, and I rise to support the 
bill and the gentleman's important amendment to it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in strong support of the Upton 
amendment. This amendment ensures that those who are the subject of 
indecency complaints are provided with a constitutional right to due 
process. For instance, until a forfeiture penalty has been paid or a 
court has finally determined that a forfeiture penalty is justified, a 
complaint should not be held against the broadcast station license.

                              {time}  1230

  Just like someone who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, this 
amendment guarantees that a broadcast license cannot be revoked or 
license renewal rejected until all of the appeals have been heard. This 
is a good amendment, it was pointed out in our hearing at the very end, 
and I would hope has bipartisan support. It tightens the loophole.
  I just want to say in closing in support of this amendment, I want to 
thank in particular, I think, the many Members who have been so engaged 
in this legislation, and I want to thank the staff as well. On our side 
of the aisle, we have had terrific staff that have worked with the very 
good staff, terrific staff on the other side as well; but I want to 
particularly cite a number of individuals: Will Nordwind, Howard 
Waltzman, Neil Fried, Kelly Zerzan, Joan Hillebrands, Sean Bonyur, Jim 
Barnette, Jaylyn Connaughton, and Andy Black for their hard work in 
making sure that this bill got to the floor quickly and swiftly, and 
that, in fact, it was in a very strong bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if there is no one seeking recognition in 
opposition, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, 
even though I support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objecton.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would like to say that this is a good amendment. It has been 
crafted on a bipartisan basis. We have worked very closely together, 
Democrat and Republican, on this issue right from the beginning; and 
this amendment reflects that continuing level of cooperation. I just 
want any of the Members who are listening to this debate to understand 
that that consensus has been reached.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other Members seeking 
recognition, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 2 printed in House Report 108-436.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       After section 10 of the bill insert the following section 
     (and redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):

     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

[[Page 4055]]

      profane material to the Federal Communications Commission;
       (2) the number of such complaints that result in final 
     agency actions by the Commission;
       (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.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 554, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is a simple contribution to this bill that I believe 
will bring some additional accountability and enforcement to the FCC's 
current process of handling broadcasting complaints and proposed 
violation of FCC rules.
  My amendment to this legislation would give the General Accounting 
Office 1 year to study and report back to Congress on the number of 
complaints concerning the broadcasting of obscenity, indecency, and 
profane material to the Federal Communications Commission; the number 
of such complaints that result in final agency actions by the 
commission; the length of time taken by the commission in responding to 
such complaints; what mechanisms the commission has established to 
proceed, investigate, and respond to such complaints; and whether such 
complaints to the commission are adequately informed by the commission 
of their responses to those complainants.
  I believe that this amendment will help this body to conform with 
third-party data and the relevant facts and figures that the FCC is 
doing its utmost to carry out the intent of the important legislation 
that we are considering today.
  The Upton legislation will crack down on indecent over-the-air 
broadcasts and will bring much-needed accountability to our public 
airwaves. Last year, there were over 240,000 complaints against 375 
programs, but the FCC issued only three notices of proposed violations. 
I believe that Congress should get more information about what the FCC 
is doing to help us perform an important oversight function over the 
FCC's action and its accountability to the American public.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Upton), 
the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Dreier) for their important work and leadership in 
bringing this legislation to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment to allow the GAO to gain more information from 
the FCC about how they are handling complaints that they receive on 
indecent material.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask that we include this amendment, and 
I ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim the time in 
opposition?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 3 printed in House Report 108-436.
  There being no further amendment in order, the question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sessions) having assumed the chair, Mr. Isakson, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3717) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio 
broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
indecent, and profane language, pursuant to House Resolution 554, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by two 5-minute votes on 
suspending the rules and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 15 and 
House Resolution 540, as amended.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 391, 
noes 22, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--391

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern

[[Page 4056]]


     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     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)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--22

     Ackerman
     Baird
     Berman
     Clay
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Honda
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Nadler
     Paul
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sherman
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bell
     Berkley
     Cardoza
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Doolittle
     Fossella
     Gibbons
     John
     King (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Maloney
     Miller (FL)
     Rodriguez
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tauzin
     Udall (CO)
     Wicker

                              {time}  1303

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GINGREY and Mr. McINNIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill 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.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed and missed 
rollcall vote No. 55. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye,'' in 
favor of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.

                          ____________________