[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4618-4628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 611. A bill to establish a Federal Interagency Committee on 
Emergency Medical Services and a Federal Interagency Committee on 
emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency 
Medical Services Act of 2005. This legislation will help to improve 
Federal efforts to support community-based emergency medical services 
across America. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feingold in this 
effort.
  Today, New York University's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and 
Response is releasing an important report, titled ``Findings from a 
National Roundtable to Improve Emergency Medical Service's Homeland 
Security Preparedness.'' This report details concerns and 
recommendations from more than 50 representatives of national EMS 
organizations and Federal agencies. Their top recommendation was to 
improve EMS homeland security preparedness through enactment of the 
very measure we are introducing today. I would note that a former 
member of my staff, Tim Raducha-Grace drafted this report. Tim 
continues to be a champion of first responders nationwide, and I 
congratulate him on this latest achievement.
  A comprehensive, coordinated emergency medical services system is 
essential to assure prompt, quality care to help individuals suffering 
from automobile crashes to traumatic medical emergencies, to terrorist 
events. The emergency medical services system serves as one of the most 
important parts of our health care safety net.
  Unfortunately, for the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has 
been both scarce and uncoordinated. At least seven Federal agencies are 
involved in various aspects of emergency medical services (EMS), though 
most agencies focus on only one segment of the EMS system and don't 
effectively coordinate with other agencies.
  In 2001, at the request of Senator Feingold and myself, the General 
Accounting Office cited in its report Emergency Medical Services: 
Reported needs are Wide-Ranging with a Growing Focus on Lack of Data 
the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they 
address the needs of regional, State, or local emergency medical 
services systems.
  This legislation would seeks to improve one of the few existing 
efforts to coordinate Federal support for EMS providers. This 
legislation would formally establish a Federal Interagency Council on 
Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), and would require the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in coordination with the 
Department of Homeland Security, to provide organizational and staff 
support.
  This legislation would enhance coordination among the Federal 
agencies involved with the State, local, tribal and regional emergency 
medical services and 9-1-1 systems. It would also help to assure 
Federal agencies coordinate their EMS-related activities and maximize 
the best utilization of established funding.
  Local, State and Federal level emergency medical services systems are 
extremely diverse and involve numerous different agencies and 
organizations. To assure a viable, responsive emergency medical 
services system, Federal agencies need the input and advice of their 
non-Federal partners and from persons regulating or providing emergency 
medical services systems at the State and local level.
  According to Tom Judge, the Executive Director of Lifeflight of 
Maine, and Jay Bradshaw, the State of Maine's EMS Director, improved 
coordination can help strengthen support for a wide range of emergency 
medical services, from rural EMS providers, to communications between 
EMS systems, to improving coordination between local EMS providers and 
their Federal partners.
  Another GAO report made it clear that the Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services needs to better coordinate its reimbursement with the 
Department of Transportation's matching grants for equipment and 
vehicles. Many of Maine's communities are at risk of seeing their first 
ambulance service closures in rural areas, such as in Rumford, ME, due 
to low reimbursement rates. If DOT targeted assistance to the low 
reimbursement areas that were at risk of shutting down, we might be 
able to maintain service in those areas.
  Improved coordination could also strengthen the integration between 
local providers and Federal agencies. Substantial numbers of our 
Reserve and National Guard units are being called up for duty, which 
has hurt search and air rescue capability across Maine. While 
LifeFlight of Maine is called upon to provide an eye in the sky there 
is little to no current capability for lifting someone out of the woods 
when there is no space to land. If the Navy pulls the last part time 
aircraft out of Brunswick Naval Air station, there wouldn't be any 
capability at all within a reasonable response timeframe.
  I am pleased to have the support of Maine's EMS Director, Jay 
Bradshaw, Lifeflight of Maine, the American Ambulance Association, the 
National Association of Maine EMS Directors, and others.
  We must ensure that Federal agencies coordinate their efforts to 
support the dedicated men and women who provide EMS services across our 
Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts by 
cosponsoring this legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help 
improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency 
medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local 
officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing 
programs and future initiatives.
  When someone has been seriously hurt or has an emergency medical 
problem in this country, the first thing

[[Page 4619]]

they do is call for an ambulance. And the EMS providers of this country 
do a great job in responding to these emergencies. All of us have a 
friend or loved one who has relied on these first responders. These 
folks rush to assist people in trouble no matter the cause. Their only 
interest is making sure the patient is medically stable and being taken 
care of.
  Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS 
providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and 
uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of 
different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the 
need to increase coordination between the Federal agencies involved 
with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report 
was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on 
how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS.
  A report to be released today by the New York University Center for 
Catastrophe Preparedness and Response highlights some of the 
deficiencies in our support for EMS. According to that report, less 
than 4 percent of the Office of Domestic Preparedness first responder 
grant funding and 5 percent of HHS bioterrorism grant funding goes to 
EMS. More than half of ambulance providers received no direct Federal 
funding for homeland security preparedness. EMS providers receive very 
little homeland security preparedness education, training, and 
equipment and tend not to be well integrated into overall response 
planning.
  The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing 
many of the deficiencies in our current EMS policies and takes many of 
the steps recommended by the NYU report. It would establishes a Federal 
interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate Federal EMS 
activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in 
homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and 
streamlining EMS support. A1though Federal law, P.L. 107-188, called 
for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes 
further in detailing the role and function of the interagency 
committee. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist.
  This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the 
interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the 
EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal 
representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural 
areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on 
a variety of issues including the development of standards and national 
plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and 
streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical 
component of this legislation because it is the channel through which 
local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national 
EMS policy.
  I want to thank the long list of supporting organizations, including 
Advocates for EMS, the American Ambulance Association, the American 
College of Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American 
Heart Association, Association of Air Medical Services, ComCARE, the 
Emergency Nurses Association, Gold Cross/Mayo Medical Transport, the 
National Association of EMS Educators, the National Association of EMS 
Technicians, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National 
EMS Pilot Association, the National Association of State EMS Directors, 
and the National Registry of EMTs. I also want to thank all of those 
Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this 
legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum 
of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of 
Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board, for 
their advice and guidance.
  EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first 
responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate Federal 
EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS 
community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 612. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to award the 
Combat Medical Badge or another combat badge for Army helicopter 
medical evacuation ambulance (Medevac) pilots and crews; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain 
briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical 
Badge (CMB), or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the 
Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance 
units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have 
flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and Marines.
  The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was brought to my attention by a 
group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF 
story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and 
sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in 
saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the 
wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life-
saving medical care.
  The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during 
the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War 
helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded 
from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group 
of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' 
helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew 
could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide 
station.
  The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky 
and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of 
helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. 
However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting 
spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable 
resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 
1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied 
military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical 
assistance sites.
  Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th 
Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST 
OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the 
``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, 
the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the 
motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today.
  Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of 
rescuing fallen comrades so much so that he gave his life to the 
mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to 
evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was 
instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the 
landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase 
that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As 
Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in 
the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and 
the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned 
its permanency in the Army.
  I received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief 
Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army 
Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours 
in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the 
sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed 
in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST 
OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 
5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of 
landing in ``hot''

[[Page 4620]]

landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed 
to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel 
has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. 
Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into 
combat zones to evacuate the wounded.
  I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of 
DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will 
recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which 
acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the 
War Department created the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) in WWII, as a 
companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) it did so to recognize 
that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of 
ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF 
pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground 
combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly 
assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit a fact that, under 
current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB should 
not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author 
has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in 
Vietnam.''
  On July 29, 2003, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Committee on 
Veterans Affairs to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about 
their experiences under fire. I gave the Army an opportunity to explain 
its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an 
appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Based on testimony 
offered by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael 
J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and 
Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than 
ever of the worthiness of this legislation. Following the July 29, 
2003, hearing, I introduced this legislation--S. 1487 in the 108th 
Congress. The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, 
which has jurisdiction over this matter. Unfortunately, the bill never 
made its way out of committee which is why I am re-introducing this 
important legislation today.
  Army officials recently decided to create a ``Close Combat Badge'' 
(CCB) for non-infantry soldiers that recognizes their direct 
participation in ground combat. However, this badge will not be awarded 
to DUST OFF Medical Helicopter Evacuation Crew Members who have yet to 
be properly recognized.
  On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 
medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. 
The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in 
Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature 
of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to 
perform, while serving on DUST OFF crews.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 613. A bill to establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site 
in the State of Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel 
Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park 
Service in southwestern Pennsylvania.
  The importance of steel to the industrial development of the United 
States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the 
history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity 
to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic 
endemic to this great Nation. The National Park Service recently 
reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead 
Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full 
national park, an option which had been considered in prior years, and 
which I proposed in legislation during the 107th Congress. Due to the 
backlog of maintenance projects at national parks, the legislation 
offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be 
affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for 
such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a 
significant role in early industrial America and continues to today.
  I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance this historical 
steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which 
includes the City of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania 
counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and 
Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional 
support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area 
expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually 
since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. 
However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the 
historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why 
I am introducing this legislation today.
  It is important to note why southwestern Pennsylvania should be the 
home to the national site that my legislation authorizes. The 
combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and 
Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern 
United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the 
remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are 
threatened with further deterioration. Many of these sites are 
nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and 
interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some 
of these sites include the Carrie Furnace complex, the Hot Metal 
Bridge, and the Unites States Steel Homestead Works, which would all 
become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my 
legislation.
  Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide 
range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and 
interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management 
relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a 
national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of 
Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The 
Battle of Homestead marked a crucial period in our Nation's workers' 
rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and 
public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve 
resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. 
For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it 
is time for the federal government to join this effort to recognize 
their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill.
  I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Mike Doyle, who 
has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has 
consistently sponsored identical legislation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern 
Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief 
Executive Officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order 
to bring this national historic site to fruition. We came very close to 
passing this bill in the 108th Congress with its passage in various 
forms in the House and Senate. However, Congress adjourned prior to 
final passage of the same bill in both chambers. Therefore, today I 
reintroduce this legislation and urge its swift passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 614. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit 
medicare-eligible veterans to receive an out-patient medication 
benefit, to provide that certain veterans who receive such benefit are 
not otherwise eligible for medical care and services from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reintroduce 
the

[[Page 4621]]

``Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2005,'' a bill which 
seeks to assist Medicare-eligible veterans struggling with the costs of 
prescription medications.
  In the 108th Congress, I worked with my colleagues to provide a 
prescription drug benefit for all Medicare-eligible seniors. Today, I 
offer legislation to allow Medicare-eligible veterans to obtain 
prescription drugs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the 
significantly discounted costs that VA, as a high-volume purchaser of 
prescriptions medications, is able to secure in the marketplace.
  On May 23, 2003, I introduced similar legislation--S. 1153 in the 
108th Congress. In my capacity as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs 
Committee in the 108th Congress, I held a hearing on June 22, 2004, and 
heard testimony from Senate colleagues, Veterans Administration 
officials, and various veterans service organizations on this important 
legislation. On July 20, 2004, the Committee on Veterans Affairs 
reported out S. 1153 by a vote of 10 yeas and 5 nays. Unfortunately, 
the full Senate did not consider this measure.
  In 2003, former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi was 
forced to limit access to VA care--which continues to this day--by 
suspending new enrollments of non-service-disabled middle and higher 
income veterans who were not enrolled for care as of January 17, 2003. 
The Secretary was forced to so act because the number of patients 
provided care by VA had more than doubled in just five years and, as a 
result, VA's medical care system had been overwhelmed. As a 
consequence, VA was unable to provide timely access to healthcare for 
all veterans who had sought it and appointment waiting times had grown 
to alarming levels. But in almost every news story that followed the 
Secretary's difficult decision, it was noted that many of the new 
enrollees who had overwhelmed VA's capacity to provide care were 
Medicare-eligible veterans who were able to get Medicare-financed care 
elsewhere but who were seeking access to the relatively generous 
prescription drug program provided to veterans under VA care.
  Currently, VA provides enrolled patients with prescription 
medications for $7 for each 30-day supply. But to get such 
prescriptions, the veteran must obtain the full range of medical care 
from VA. This fact, coupled with former VA Secretary Principi's 
decision to close enrollment, means that veterans who are now, or who 
will be, eligible for Medicare who had not enrolled for VA care prior 
to January 17, 2003, will be unable to access VA's generous 
prescription drug benefits. This legislation would provide some relief 
for those veterans. In addition, I anticipate that it may induce some 
VA-enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans--those who were happy with their 
Medicare-financed care but who enrolled for VA care to gain access to 
VA-supplied drugs--to return to non-VA care with knowledge that they 
will be able to get their non-VA prescriptions filled through VA. 
Enactment of this provision, then, would reduce--not exacerbate--VA 
patient backlog numbers.
  The premise of this legislation is straightforward. VA fills and 
distributes more than 100 million prescriptions each year for its 4.7 
million veteran-patients. As a result, it has significant purchasing 
power--power which, coupled with VA's formulary program, allows it to 
negotiate very favorable prices for prescription drugs. According to 
the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the average ``cash 
cost'' of a prescription in 2003 was $59.28. The average VA per-
prescription cost in 2003 was just under $25--more than 50 percent 
less. This bill would allow veterans to access these significant 
discounts simply by providing a written prescription from any duly 
licensed physician, presumably one he or she has seen under the 
Medicare program.
  By reintroducing this legislation today, I seek to afford Medicare-
eligible veterans access to such discounts. I do not propose that VA be 
directed to supply drugs to all Medicare-eligible veterans at VA 
expense, or even with a partial VA subsidy. VA has stated that such a 
mandate would divert VA funding which, clearly, is already stretched to 
the limit--away from VA priority patients: the service-connected, the 
poor, and those with special needs. I accept VA's statement of concern. 
I accept and I insist that scarce funding be directed, first, to meet 
the needs of priority patients. This legislation, therefore, requires 
that VA recover the costs of drugs it supplies under this program from 
veterans who bring their prescriptions from outside doctors to VA.
  I do not propose to tell VA in this bill how to recover these costs. 
VA is better positioned than I to make such judgments. Thus, my 
legislation provides flexibility to VA to design and test payment 
mechanisms to best accomplish cost recovery while still easing 
veterans' access to the drugs they need. It might be that enrollment 
fees, a co-payment structure, or a simple ``cost-plus'' for 
administrative expenses pricing format, or some combination of those 
mechanisms works best. It might be that different approaches work best 
in different regions of the country. I intend for the VA to experiment 
with different pricing structures to determine what works best. 
However, I also intend that veterans get a break on prescription drug 
pricing.
  Those who would first benefit from this program are World War II and 
Korean War veterans who answered their country's call over 50 years 
ago. As they age, many desperately need relief from high drug prices. 
My purpose is not to minimize the work of the drug companies. Their 
discoveries have truly been marvels, but that is precious little 
comfort to a Medicare participant who, whatever the drug's overall 
utility might be, cannot afford both the drug and food or shelter or 
heat.
  The premise of this legislation is simple: veteran access to VA 
market-driven discounts. Yet, the assistance it could provide might be 
profound. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that the problem 
might be solved, or at least reduced, for seniors who served. They 
deserve it, and we should do it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 616. A bill to inform the American public and to protect children 
from increasing depictions of indecent and gratuitous and excessive 
violent material on television, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, to better protect our children and 
families from the increasingly indecent and violent images pervading 
our homes, I am introducing with Senator Hutchison the Indecent and 
Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005. I 
believe this to be a crucial issue with far-reaching implications for 
our young people and for our country, and I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to join me in seeing that this bill is enacted and sent to 
the President for his signature.
  Each day, and for hours and hours every day, broadcast, cable, and 
satellite television outlets indiscriminately barrage our children and 
families with indecent and violent images. Our children don't 
differentiate between sources of their programs, and neither should the 
law. Not only does the pervasive nature of indecent programming coarsen 
our society, but also its effects are being felt in our homes, in our 
schools, and on our streets. I cannot tell you how many parents and 
educators have told me that the behavior of the children in their care 
is bad and getting worse, and that they blame what these kids are 
seeing on television for much of the problem.
  The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming 
Control Act is not intended to limit artistic expression, nor is it my 
purpose to impose the will of Congress on decisions that properly 
belong to parents. What I hope to do with this legislation is to give 
parents and broadcasters, especially local affiliates, a set of tools 
they can use to control the violence and lewdness being beamed into 
their homes and communities. To help parents determine what is 
appropriate programming for their children to watch, this legislation 
mandates meaningful labeling of violent and indecent

[[Page 4622]]

programming to include a full-screen, 30-second warning every 30 
minutes on broadcast, cable, and satellite programming. To help local 
broadcasters determine what appropriate programming for their 
communities is, the bill would allow local broadcasters to refuse to 
air programming that they believe violates their own community 
standards, and protects local broadcasters from fines levied for 
broadcast decisions imposed on them by national networks. I believe 
local broadcasters in West Virginia and across the country know what 
the standards of decency are in their own communities, but currently 
are at the mercy of the national networks. We need to give them the 
tools to follow community standards, and protect them when a national 
network forces them to air harmful programming.
  The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming 
Control Act will require the Federal Communication Commission to begin 
comprehensive review of existing technologies to protect our children 
from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on broadcast 
television. My bill would require the FCC to assess the effectiveness 
of both the current voluntary ratings system and the ``V-Chip'' and 
other content-blocking technologies. I supported both voluntary 
announcements and requiring television manufacturers to install the V-
Chip. I believe that both can be beneficial to parents who seek to 
limit what their kids are seeing. But I acknowledge--as every parent in 
a house with a television must that kids will seek out inappropriate 
content, and will attempt to find a way around whatever warnings or 
technological fixes we put in place to control their access to that 
content.
  This legislation calls upon the FCC to recommend improved techniques 
or additional technologies that will help parents protect their 
children from material that could harm them or incite them to harm 
others. Specifically, if the FCC cannot affirm that these technologies 
are practically effective in protecting children then 1. create a 
``safe harbor'' or other mechanism to protect children from gratuitous 
and excessively violent programming on broadcast television and 2. 
Require the least restrictive means to protect children from indecency 
and gratuitous and excessive violence for cable and satellite 
programming.
  This should not be an ad hoc judgment made out of fear of the FCC on 
the part of broadcasters, but instead a bright line test that artists, 
television networks, advertisers, and cable and satellite providers 
and, most importantly, parents can rely on. Because programming that is 
excessively violent or promotes violence is every bit as damaging to 
our youth as is content depicting sexuality in gratuitous or prurient 
manner, we must address both issues.
  The Indecent and Violent Programming Control Act would increase fines 
the FCC could impose on broadcasters from $27,500 to $500,000 and gives 
the FCC the appropriate authority to double fines bases on certain 
circumstances. While I believe indecent programming transmitted against 
national and community standards, or against the wishes of adult 
consumers, must be punished, I also believe that most broadcasters are 
responsible and are interested in providing wholesome entertainment. As 
a means of self-policing, I have included a Sense of Congress that 
broadcast television outlets, as well as cable and satellite providers, 
abide by the ``Television Code of National Association of 
Broadcasters.''
  Finally, and this may be the most important part of the bill, my 
legislation mandates that all broadcasters, be they network, cable, or 
satellite, to double the amount of children's programming they are 
required to show each week. Whatever one believes about other parts of 
the legislation I am introducing here today, I would hope that my 
colleagues would be pleased and proud to see this provision enacted. 
What might surprise my colleagues, and indeed most Americans, is that 
broadcasters are currently only required to show three hours of 
children's content a week. When you consider that what passes for 
children's content often amounts to little more than advertisements for 
products aimed at children, this is a travesty.
  I welcome a vigorous and healthy debate on the issue of indecent 
programming aimed at children. We owe it to our children, and to the 
nation, to take up these challenging questions, and resolve to find 
ways to protect kids, encourage creativity, and pay allegiance to the 
Constitution. I believe the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively 
Violent Programming Control Act is a vital step toward that goal.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 616

       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 ``Indecent and Gratuitous and 
     Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Increasingly, parents, educators, and families are 
     concerned about the material that is broadcast on television 
     and radio, and the effect such material has on America's 
     children.
       (2) Television influences children's perception of the 
     values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (3) Broadcast television, cable television, and video 
     programming are--
       (A) uniquely pervasive presences in the lives of all 
     American children; and
       (B) readily accessible to all American children.
       (4) 85.1 percent of all American homes subscribe to multi-
     channel video programming.
       (5) Complaints about indecent programming have grown 
     exponentially in the last five years.
       (6) In 2004, Americans filed over 1,000,000 complaints with 
     the Federal Communications Commission about indecent 
     programming.
       (7) According to reports from the Parents Television 
     Council, indecent and violent video programming on cable 
     television is pervasive.
       (8) Studies also show that parents are increasingly 
     concerned. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more 
     than 4 out of 5 parents are concerned that their children are 
     being exposed to too much sex on television.
       (9) Violent video programming influences children, as does, 
     indecent programming.
       (10) The American Association of Pediatrics, the American 
     Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, 
     and the U.S. Surgeon General have all documented the harm 
     from watching excessive television violence on children.
       (11) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming at a young age have a higher 
     tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later 
     in life than those children not so exposed.
       (12) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming have a greater tendency to assume 
     that acts of violence are acceptable behavior and therefore 
     to imitate such behavior.
       (13) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming have an increased fear of becoming 
     a victim of violence, resulting in increased self-protective 
     behaviors and increased mistrust of others.
       (14) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     limiting the negative influences of violent video programming 
     on children.
       (15) A significant amount of violent video programming that 
     is readily accessible to minors remains unrated specifically 
     for violence and therefore cannot be blocked solely on the 
     basis of its violent content.
       (16) Age-based ratings that do not include content rating 
     for violence do not allow parents to block programming based 
     solely on violent content thereby rendering ineffective any 
     technology-based blocking mechanism designed to limit violent 
     video programming.
       (17) Technology-based solutions, such as the V-chip, may be 
     helpful in protecting some children, but cannot achieve the 
     compelling governmental interest in protecting all children 
     from violent video programming when parents are only able to 
     block programming that has, in fact, been rated for violence.
       (18) Restricting the hours when violent video programming 
     can be shown to protect the interests of children whose 
     parents are unavailable, unable to supervise their children's 
     viewing behavior, do not have the benefit of technology-based 
     solutions, are unable to afford the costs of technology-based 
     solutions, or are unable to determine the content of those 
     shows that are only subject to age-based ratings.
       (19) After further study, pursuant to a rulemaking, the 
     Federal Communications Commission may conclude that content-
     based

[[Page 4623]]

     ratings and blocking technology do not effectively protect 
     children from the harm of violent video programming.
       (20) If the Federal Communications Commission reaches the 
     conclusion described in paragraph (19), the channeling of 
     violent video programming will be the least restrictive means 
     of limiting the exposure of children to the harmful 
     influences of violent video programming.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (2) Multichannel video programming distributor.--The term 
     ``multichannel video programming distributor'' has the same 
     meaning given such term in section 602 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522).
       (3) Other programming service.--The term ``other 
     programming service'' has the same meaning given such term in 
     section 602 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     522).

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASURES PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM 
                   INDECENT AND VIOLENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Assessment.--The Commission shall assess--
       (1) the technological and practical effectiveness of 
     statutory and regulatory measures that require television 
     broadcast station licensees and multichannel video 
     programming distributors to rate and encode programming that 
     could be blocked by parents, including use of the technology 
     required by the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket 97-
     206, under section 303(x) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 303(x)), in accomplishing their intended purposes;
       (2)(A) the prevalence of violent programming on television;
       (B) the effectiveness of the current system for rating and 
     encoding violent television programming, including--
       (i) an assessment of consumer awareness of the current 
     ratings system; and
       (ii) an assessment of whether current ratings are self-
     administered or performed by independent organizations; and
       (3) the technological and practical effectiveness of 
     measures used by multichannel video programming distributors 
     to protect children from exposure to--
       (A) indecent video programming; and
       (B) gratuitous and excessively violent video programming.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Commission 
     shall report its findings from the assessments made under 
     subsection (a) to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the United States Senate and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the United States House of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Rulemaking Proceeding.--
       (1) In general.--If the Commission determines, on the basis 
     of an assessment under subsection (a), that a measure 
     described in subsection (a) is not effective in protecting 
     children from exposure to gratuitous and excessively violent 
     video programming on television broadcasts, or from exposure 
     to indecent video programming or gratuitous and excessively 
     violent video programming carried by multichannel video 
     programming distributors, then the Commission shall initiate 
     and conclude (not later than 270 days after the date of that 
     determination) a rulemaking proceeding--
       (A) to prohibit television broadcast station licensees from 
     broadcasting gratuitous and excessively violent programming 
     during the hours when children are reasonably likely to 
     comprise a substantial portion of the audience if the 
     Commission's determination relates to measures applicable to 
     such broadcast television programming; or
       (B) to adopt measures to protect children from indecent 
     video programming, or gratuitous and excessively violent 
     video programming, as the case may be, carried by 
     multichannel video programming distributors during the hours 
     when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial 
     portion of the audience if the Commission's determination 
     relates to measures applicable to such multichannel video 
     programming.
       (2) Exemptions.--The Commission may exempt from any 
     prohibition or measure promulgated under paragraph (1)--
       (A) video programming the broadcast or carriage of which 
     does not conflict with the objective of protecting children 
     from access to--
       (i) indecent programming; or
       (ii) gratuitous and excessively violent video programming; 
     and
       (B) premium and pay-per-view services.
       (d) Enforcement.--The forfeiture penalties established by 
     section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     503(b)) shall apply to a violation of any regulation 
     promulgated under subsection (c) in the same manner as if it 
     were a violation of a provision of that Act subject to a 
     forfeiture penalty under section 503 of that Act.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Gratuitous and excessively violent video programming.--
     The Commission shall define the term ``gratuitous and 
     excessively violent video programming'' for purposes of this 
     section. In defining it, the Commission--
       (A) may include matter that is excessive or gratuitous 
     violence within the meaning of the 1992 Broadcast Standards 
     for the Depiction of Violence in Television Programs, 
     December, 1992; and
       (B) shall take into account the findings set forth in 
     section 551(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 
     U.S.C. 303 note).
       (2) Hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a 
     substantial portion of the audience.--The Commission shall 
     define the term ``hours when children are reasonably likely 
     to comprise a substantial portion of the audience'' for 
     purposes of this section.
       (3) Indecent video programming.--The Commission shall 
     define the term ``indecent video programming'' for purposes 
     of this section.
       (4) Television broadcast station licensee.--The term 
     ``television broadcast station licensee'' means the licensee 
     or permittee of a television broadcast station licensed or 
     permitted by the Federal Communications Commission under 
     title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 5. IMPROVED ENFORCEMENT OF INDECENCY ON BROADCAST 
                   PROGRAMMING.

       (a) In General.--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)(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
       ``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to 
     have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language or 
     images,

     the amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $500,000, with each utterance 
     constituting a separate violation, except that the amount 
     assessed a licensee or permitee for any number of violations 
     in a given 24-hour time period shall not exceed a total of 
     $3,000,000. In determining the amount of any forfeiture 
     penalty under this subparagraph, the Commission, in addition 
     to the elements identified in subparagraph (E), shall take 
     into account the violator's ability to pay, including such 
     factors as the revenue and profits of the broadcast stations 
     that aired the obscene, indecent, or profane language and the 
     size of the markets in which these stations are located.'';
       (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
       (b) Additional Factors in Indecency Penalties; Exception.--
     Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(2)), as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(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 
     with respect to the degree of culpability of the violator:
       ``(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 would 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.
       ``(v) The size of the market.
       ``(vi) Whether the violation occurred during a children's 
     television program (as such term is used in the Children's 
     Television Programming Policy referenced in section 
     73.4050(c) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 
     73.4050(c)) or during a television program rated TVY, TVY7, 
     TVY7FV, or TVG under the TV Parental Guidelines as such 
     ratings were approved by the Commission in implementation of 
     section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video 
     Programming Ratings, Report and Order, CS Docket No. 97-55, 
     13 F.C.C. Rcd. 8232 (1998)), and, with respect to a radio 
     broadcast station licensee, permittee, or applicant, whether 
     the target audience was primarily comprised of, or should 
     reasonably have been expected to be primarily comprised of, 
     children.
       ``(G) The Commission may double the amount of any 
     forfeiture penalty if the Commission determines additional 
     factors are present which are aggravating in nature, 
     including--
       ``(i) whether the material uttered by the violator was 
     recorded or scripted;
       ``(ii) whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to 
     review recorded or scripted

[[Page 4624]]

     programming or had a reasonable basis to believe live or 
     unscripted programming would contain obscene, indecent, or 
     profane material;
       ``(iii) whether the violator failed to block live or 
     unscripted programming;
       ``(iv) whether the size of the viewing or listening 
     audience of the programming was substantially larger than 
     usual, such as a national or international championship 
     sporting event or awards program; and
       ``(v) whether the violation occurred during a children's 
     television program (as defined in subparagraph (F)(vi)).
       ``(H) For purposes of this section, the Commission shall 
     have the authority to impose a forfeiture penalty on any 
     broadcast station (as defined in section 153), network 
     station, nationally distributed superstation, or television 
     network (as those terms are defined in section 339).''.
       (c) Public Hearings for Violations of Indecency 
     Prohibitions.--Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 503) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Public Hearings for Violations of Indecency 
     Prohibitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any proceeding initiated under this 
     section in which the Commission issues a notice of apparent 
     liability, but prior to its imposition of a forfeiture 
     penalty, the Commission or designees of the Commission shall 
     conduct public hearings or forums at the discretion of the 
     Commission or its designees, at any time and place the 
     Commission or its designees is able to secure facilities and 
     witnesses, for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the 
     Commission and to ascertain the concerns and interests of the 
     affected viewing communities exposed to the broadcast.
       ``(2) Combined hearings.--If a broadcast results in the 
     initiation of multiple proceedings and the issuance of 
     multiple notices of apparent liability, but prior to the 
     imposition of multiple forfeiture penalties, the Commission 
     or its designee may combine the hearings required under 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 6. LOCAL BROADCASTING AUTHORITY TO PREEMPT PROGRAMMING.

       Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 301 et. seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 340. LOCAL BROADCASTING AUTHORITY TO PREEMPT 
                   PROGRAMMING DEEMED OBSCENE OR INDECENT.

       ``(a) Local Broadcaster Ability to Review Programming in 
     Advance.--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 be given reasonable 
     opportunity to review all recorded or scripted programming in 
     advance.
       ``(b) Authority to Preempt.--A broadcast station licensee 
     or permittee described in subsection (a)--
       ``(1) may decide not to broadcast, or otherwise preempt, in 
     whole or in part and without penalty, any programming that it 
     reasonably believes depicts or describes--
       ``(A) obscene, indecent, profane, or gratuitous and 
     excessively violent material; or
       ``(B) activities that would be patently offensive as 
     measured by the community standards of the community in which 
     they operate; and
       ``(2) shall notify, in advance, the network organization of 
     any decision not to broadcast, or otherwise preempt, any 
     programming under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Exemption From Penalty.--A broadcast station licensee 
     or permittee described in subsection (a) shall not be subject 
     to a forfeiture penalty under section 503(b)(2) for the 
     broadcast of a program found to be in violation of section 
     503(b)(1), if the broadcast station licensee or permittee 
     prior to such broadcast was--
       ``(1) required by a network organization to broadcast the 
     program which was recorded or scripted, regardless of such 
     broadcast station licensee or permittee's decision not to 
     broadcast, or otherwise preempt, the program under subsection 
     (b);
       ``(2) not provided a reasonable opportunity to review the 
     program; or
       ``(3) required to broadcast the program which was 
     unscripted, live, or otherwise presented without a time delay 
     blocking mechanism.
       ``(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall preclude 
     the imposition of a forfeiture penalty under section 
     503(b)(2) against a network organization or its owned and 
     operated affiliate.
       ``(e) Definition.--The Commission shall by rule define the 
     term `network organization' for purposes of this section.''.

     SEC. 7. WARNINGS BASED ON CONTENT OF PROGRAMMING.

       Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as amended by section 6, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 341. WARNINGS BASED ON CONTENT OF PROGRAMMING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each television and radio broadcast 
     licensee, multichannel video programming distributor, or 
     other programming service shall provide a warning of the 
     specific content of each recorded or scripted program it 
     broadcasts.
       ``(b) Warning Standards.--A warning provided under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) include information regarding the language content, 
     sexual content, and violence content of the program to be 
     broadcast or distributed;
       ``(2) be broadcast or distributed so as--
       ``(A) to appear in both visible and audible form;
       ``(B) to appear full screen for 30 seconds at the beginning 
     of the program, and every 30 minutes thereafter in the case 
     of a program in excess of 30 minutes in length; and
       ``(C) to advise viewers of their ability to block any such 
     program, including programs containing gratuitous and 
     excessively violent material, using V-chip technology to 
     block display of programs with a common rating required under 
     subsection (x) of section 303.
       ``(c) Review.--The Commission shall, from time to time, 
     review the warnings on the content of broadcast programming 
     required under this section for the purpose of assuring that 
     such warnings meet the requirements of this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms 
     `multichannel video programming distributor' and `other 
     programming service' have the same meaning given such terms 
     in section 602.
       ``(e) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed 
     or construed to relieve, preclude, or obviate the application 
     of the ratings standards set forth in the TV Parental 
     Guidelines (Video Programming Ratings, Report and Order, CS 
     Docket No. 97-55, 13 F.C.C. Rcd. 8232 (1998)) as such 
     voluntary ratings were established by the National 
     Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable Television 
     Association, and the Motion Picture Association of America 
     and approved by the Commission in implementation of section 
     551.''.

     SEC. 8. ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTARY RATING 
                   STANDARDS.

       The Commission shall--
       (1) assess the effectiveness of measures designed to 
     provide parents with timely information about the rating of 
     upcoming broadcast programming under the TV Parental 
     Guidelines (Video Programming Ratings, Report and Order, CS 
     Docket No. 97-55, 13 F.C.C. Rcd. 8232 (1998)) as such 
     voluntary ratings were established by the National 
     Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable Television 
     Association, and the Motion Picture Association of America 
     and approved by the Commission in implementation of section 
     551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
       (2) assess the technical feasibility of developing ratings 
     systems from alternative sources; and
       (3) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, report its findings based on the assessment under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the United States Senate and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 9. CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Increase in Amount of Educational and Informational 
     Programming for Children.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations in accordance with section 102(a) of the 
     Children's Television Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a(a)), to 
     require that each television broadcast licensee broadcast not 
     less than 6 hours of programming specifically designed to 
     serve the educational and informational needs of children 
     during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise 
     a substantial portion of the audience.
       (2) Proportional increase for digital television 
     multicasts.--In response to the requirements of section 
     309(j)(14), the Commission shall promulgate regulations in 
     accordance with section 102(a) of the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a(a)), to require each television 
     broadcast licensee providing digital multicasts to provide an 
     amount of time to broadcast programming specifically designed 
     to serve the educational and informational needs of children 
     during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise 
     a substantial portion of the audience in the same ratio to 
     its total amount of time provided to such children's 
     programming on its main stream under paragraph (1) bears to 
     the total amount of time provided to all programming during 
     the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a 
     substantial portion of the audience.
       (b) Report.--The Commission shall amend its regulations to 
     require each television broadcast licensee to file, 
     regularly, a report on how it met, for the year in review, 
     its obligations to serve the educational and informational 
     needs of children in accordance with section 102(a) of the 
     Children's Television Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a(a)).
       (c) Website Requirement.--The Commission shall amend its 
     regulations to require each television broadcast licensee for 
     which there is a publicly accessible website on the 
     Internet--
       (1) to make its report available to the public on that 
     website; or
       (2) to provide a hyperlink on that website to the report on 
     the Commission's website.

[[Page 4625]]



     SEC. 10. REINSTATEMENT OF VOLUNTARY CODE OF CONDUCT.

       (a) Voluntary Industry Code of Conduct Governing Content of 
     Broadcast Programming.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
     each television and radio broadcast licensee, multichannel 
     video programming distributor, or other programming service 
     should reinstitute or adopt, as the case may be, and 
     faithfully comply with, the provisions set forth in the 
     ``Television Code of the National Association of 
     Broadcasters'' as adopted on December 6, 1951, with 
     amendments thereafter, by the Television Board of the 
     National Association of Broadcasters, formerly known as the 
     National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters.
       (b) Antitrust Exemption.--
       (1) In general.--The antitrust laws as defined in 
     subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 12) and the law of unfair competition under section 5 
     of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) shall not 
     apply to any joint discussion, consideration, review, action, 
     or agreement by or among television and radio broadcast 
     licensees, multichannel video programming distributors, or 
     other programming services for the purpose of, and limited 
     to, developing and disseminating voluntary guidelines 
     designed to provide a code of conduct regarding the content 
     of broadcast programs.
       (2) Exception.--The exemption provided for in this 
     subsection shall not apply to any joint discussion, 
     consideration, review, action, or agreement which results in 
     a boycott of any person, corporation, advertiser, or 
     industry.

     SEC. 11. PREMIUM AND PAY-PER-VIEW CHANNELS EXEMPT.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be deemed or 
     construed to apply to any premium or pay-per-view service.
       (b) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term 
     ``premium or pay-per-view service'' shall mean any video 
     programming provided by a multichannel video programming 
     distributor that is offered on a per channel or per program 
     basis.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 617. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out the 
dredging project, Menominee Harbor, Menominee River, Michigan and 
Wisconsin; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a 
bill to reauthorize the dredging of the Menominee River and Channel to 
24 and 26 feet, respectively, from their present NOAA-certified depth 
of 20 feet. Congress originally authorized this dredging in 1960 
through Public Law 86-645, which was subsequently deauthorized by the 
Army in an administrative action due to a lack of funding as required 
by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662.
  The Menominee harbor channel depth of 20 feet dates back to 1931. 
While harbor depths of 20 feet may have been adequate for ships of that 
time, a detailed study by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1959 reported 
the size of cargo ships using Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI ports 
increased significantly in the mid-1950's. Unfortunately, many of 
today's modern and more efficient cargo ships cannot safely navigate in 
harbors with 20-foot clearances. Dredging the river and channel to 24 
and 26 feet would make these ports accessible to the larger ships and 
would be important to the economic growth in Menominee, Marinette, and 
the other regions of the country with which they trade. Manufacturing, 
shipbuilding, and transportation industries account for over a third of 
the region's employment and rely heavily on access to competitive port 
facilities.
  Dredging of the Menominee River and Channel has been the subject of 
no less than a dozen studies submitted to Congress over the past 
century. The 1959 Army Corps of Engineers study recommended dredging to 
the depths I am proposing today and included support from the then-
Governors of Michigan and Wisconsin, and findings of no adverse impact 
by the Departments Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the 
Federal Power Commission. Assessments by the environmental agencies of 
Michigan and Wisconsin referenced in the Corps' report indicated the 
proposed dredging would not harm local fish and wildlife. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Specter, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida):
  S. 619. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal 
the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will repeal two 
provisions of current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits 
for teachers and other government pensioners--the Government Pension 
Offset provision and the Windfall Elimination Provision.
  Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower 
than those in the private sector, find that they are penalized and held 
to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. The 
unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more difficult to recruit 
teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; and it does so at a time 
when we should to be doing everything we can to recruit the best and 
brightest to these careers.
  The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social 
Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the 
spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the 
effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social 
Security. And, as one might guess, this provision disproportionately 
affects women.
  The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social 
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also 
receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.
  Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal 
to 90 percent of their first $627 in average monthly career earnings, 
plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,152 and 15 percent of 
earnings above $3,152. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed 
to receive 40 percent of the first $627 in career monthly earnings, a 
penalty of over $300 per month.
  To my mind it is simply unfair. My legislation will allow government 
pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which non-
government pension recipients are entitled.
  I do not understand why we would want to discourage people from 
pursuing careers in public service by essentially saying that if you do 
enter public service; your family will suffer by not being able to 
receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be entitled 
to.
  Record enrollments in public schools and the projected retirements of 
thousands of veteran teachers are driving an urgent need for teacher 
recruitment. Critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate 
hiring additional teachers. It is estimated that schools will need to 
hire between 2.2 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 
2009.
  California currently has more than 300,000 teachers, but will need to 
hire an additional 300,000 teachers by 2010 to keep up with 
California's rate of student enrollment, which is three times the 
national average. All in all, California has to hire tens of thousands 
of new teachers every year.
  To combat the growing teacher shortage crisis, forty-five States and 
the District of Columbia now offer ``alternate routes'' for 
certification to teach in the Nation's public schools.
  It is a sad irony that policymakers are encouraging experienced 
people to change careers and enter the teaching profession at the same 
time that we clearly tell them that we will reduce your Social Security 
benefits for making such a change--benefits they worked so hard to 
earn.
  Nearly one million government retirees nationwide are affected by the 
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination provisions, but 
their impact is greatest in the 12 States that chose to keep their own 
public employee retirement systems, including California.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension 
Offset reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than 
$3,600 a year.

[[Page 4626]]

And, as I mentioned earlier, the Windfall Elimination Provision causes 
already low-paid public employees outside the Social Security system, 
like teachers, firefighters and police officers, to lose up to sixty 
percent of the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. 
Sadly, the loss of Social Security benefits may make these individuals 
eligible for more costly assistance, such as food stamps.
  I am also very aware that we are facing extraordinary deficits and 
that fixing the problem that we are talking about here today will be 
expensive. I am open to considering all options that move us toward our 
goal of allowing individuals to keep the Social Security benefits they 
are entitled to. The important thing for us to do is to take action 
that moves us in the right direction.
  The reforms that led to the Government Pension Offset provision and 
the Windfall Elimination Provision are almost 20 years old. At the time 
they were enacted, I'm sure they seemed like a good idea. Now that we 
are witnessing the practical effects of those reforms, I hope that 
Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of 
benefits that make it even more difficult to recruit and retain public 
employees.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security 
Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the 
windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset 
(GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many 
public employees when they retire.
  Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are 
eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not 
covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security 
benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their 
spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social 
Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly 
penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time 
comes for them to retire.
  These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just 
for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, 
firefighters and other public employees as well. Despite their 
challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs, these invaluable 
public servants often receive far lower salaries than private sector 
employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize them when it comes 
to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their 
spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have 
their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable 
to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise 
would be entitled.
  While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in 
virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, 
including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and 
education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, 
are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.
  Almost one million retired government workers across the country have 
already been adversely affected by these provisions. Millions more 
stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we 
should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public 
service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more 
difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and 
retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public 
servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our 
families.
  The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social 
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who 
receive a government pension from work not covered under Social 
Security, such pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While 
private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 
percent of their first $612 average monthly career earnings, government 
pensioners checks are based on 40 percent a harsh penalty of more than 
$300 per month.
  The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor 
benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her 
public pension. It is estimated that nine out of ten public employees 
affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though 
their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.
  What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those 
who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those 
affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 
200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that 
can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.
  Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough 
challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their 
lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying 
about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked 
with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they 
teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial 
security in retirement.
  I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. 
Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she 
taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is 
living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in 
education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's 
Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO 
would double her current retirement income.
  These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave 
their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher 
from Otisfield, Maine, wrote:
  ``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in response 
to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the current pool of educators 
near retirement in the next few years, our schools face a crisis. Low 
wages and long hard hours are not great selling points to young 
students when selecting a career.
  ``I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found out 
about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former life as a 
well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in Boston, I contributed 
the maximum to Social Security each year. When I decided to become an 
educator, I figured that because of my many years of maximum Social 
Security contributions, I would still have a livable retirement `wage.' 
I was unaware that I would be penalized as an educator in your State.''
  In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee 
hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on 
public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from 73-
year old Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who told us about her work in 
both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and 
about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in 
retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress 
and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to 
school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began 
teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before 
retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State 
Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full 
State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the 
GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $107 a month in Social 
Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social 
Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health 
insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in pension income.
  After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute 
teaching at 75, just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am 
therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this 
legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us a cosponsors.

[[Page 4627]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        DeWine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Reed):
  S. 620. A bill to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational 
Firearms Use Protection Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer, along with Senators 
Warner of Virginia and DeWine of Ohio, the Assault Weapons Ban 
Reauthorization Act of 2005. We are joined by Senators Schumer, 
Mikulski, Durbin, Clinton, Boxer, Levin, Dodd and Reed, who are 
original cosponsors of this critical legislation.
  This is the same basic legislation that passed by the Senate last 
year as an amendment to a bill designed to provide blanket immunity for 
gun manufacturers. However, once that amendment passed, the underlying 
bill was defeated, in part by its own sponsors, after the National 
Rifle Association applied intense pressure to Members of this body.
  Thus we saw the ideological and extreme view of the National Rifle 
Association, when they sacrificed their most desired legislative 
priority--gun immunity legislation--because the Senate had approved the 
assault weapons ban and two other amendments that would save people's 
lives: closing the gun show loophole, and requiring trigger locks.
  Although President Bush had said he supported the assault weapons 
ban, he refused to personally engage to help this legislation get 
signed into law, and the ban expired on September 13, 2004. As a 
result, these weapons are now once again proliferating through our 
neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States.
  That is why, today, I am introducing the Assault Weapons Ban 
Reauthorization Act of 2005. This legislation mirrors the legislation I 
authored in the Senate and then-Congressman Schumer authored in the 
House in 1994.
  As was done then, the legislation I am introducing would: ban the 
manufacturing of 19 specific types of military-style assault weapons, 
as well as a number of other guns based on a simple test to determine 
whether the guns were hunting guns or weapons of war; prohibit the 
manufacture of large capacity ammunition magazines--clips, drums and 
strips of more than ten rounds--because it is those large capacity 
ammunition feeding devices that can make a semiautomatic assault 
weapons so very deadly; and continue to exempt 670 hunting guns 
entirely, and it is also important to note that the ban would continue 
to ``grandfather'' in every gun that was made before 1994. So no 
innocent gun owner would lose a weapon. There will again be no 
confiscation component to the bill.
  This legislation is not perfect. There are comparisons that were made 
to get it passed last time around, and since its previous enactment 
there have been many concerns raised about the need to tighten or alter 
the definition in order to make the prohibition more effective. I am 
open to working with my colleagues to ensure we enact the best 
legislation possible, but we need a first step--at a minimum Congress 
needs to reinstate the original assault weapons ban.
  Unfortunately, we are already seeing the impact of the lapse of this 
law and we should not let another year pass without reinstating its 
protections. We know the ban worked. Supply went down. Prices went up. 
The use of these weapons of war in gun crimes had fallen consistently 
since the ban passed. According to Department of Justice data, the 
proportion of these assault weapons used in crime fell more than 65 
percent since the ban took effect. And these statistics are backed up 
by report from the Brady Campaign.
  The analysis in the Brady study was performed by Gerald Nunziato, who 
for eight years served as the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's National 
Tracing Center--a man who know first hand what these numbers means.
  The study found two key things:
  First: ``Assault weapons banned by name in the Federal Assault 
Weapons Act have declined significantly as a percentage of guns ATF has 
traced to crime, and in absolute number of traces, since the Act was 
passed. Had this decline not occurred, thousands more of these banned 
assault weapons would likely have been traced to crime over the last 10 
years.''
  In other words, the assault weapons legislation signed into law ten 
years ago successfully dried up the use of banned assault weapons in 
crime. Second, arguments have arisen that despite this evidence, the 
ban has not really worked because gun manufacturers would simply 
produce copycat guns that have the same killing power as assault 
weapons, and use these guns in crime across the country. I agree that 
gun manufacturers have tried everything they could to circumvent the 
ban and this concern is something that may need to be addressed. But 
let's look at what the Brady study said about this issue.
  Second: ``The gun industry's efforts to evade the Federal Assault 
Weapons Act through the sale of `copycat' guns has not substantially 
undercut the positive effect of the statute in reducing the incidence 
of assault weapons among crime guns.''
  In other words, even though determined gun manufacturers tried to 
evade the ban, they were not successful and copycat guns did not 
replace banned guns in equal numbers, at least when traced to crimes.
  In many cases, and when dealing with many issues, I continue to find 
that what is most compelling is not just the statistics, but rather the 
real people affected by the policies we debate. It's those men, women 
and children that are the reason most of us come to work everyday. I'm 
here today to talk about this issues because of the devastating effect 
these guns can have on families in our neighborhoods, office buildings, 
street corners or schoolhouses across the country. I have said before 
that this issue really came home to me on July 1, 1993, just over 11 
years ago, when Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in 
San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-DC9 assault pistols 
capable of holding 30- or 50-bullet magazines. Within minutes, Ferri 
had murdered eight people and six others were wounded. His victims were 
not soldiers or even enforcement officers. These people doing everyday 
jobs in an everyday place. A place forever tainted by the bloodshed 
caused by one man and his assault weapons.
  And 101 California was just one of many shootings by grievance 
killers, discontented employees or even schoolchildren--shooting that 
shows us that nobody is safe when these guns are in the hands of the 
wrong people. Yet five months ago, the federal ban on assault weapons 
expired, and once again new guns like the TEC-DC9 are allowed on our 
streets. The ban expired despite overwhelming public support to renew 
it--71 percent of all Americans support renewing the assault weapons 
ban, as do 64 percent of people in homes with a gun. And it expired 
despite overwhelming support from law enforcement and civic 
organizations--nearly every major law enforcement and civic 
organization has supported a renewal, including the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
National Association of Counties, and the list goes on and on.
  Sadly, the ban expired despite the stated public support of President 
George W. Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft and despite 
the support of a majority of United States Senators--52 of us voted to 
renew this ban just this past March. Despite all of this support, this 
past September the American people were lift unprotected and made less 
safe. And make no mistake--when the ban expired the guns began to flow. 
And when the guns began to flow the safety of our communities was put 
in jeopardy.
  One advertisement that ran in gun magazines is from ArmaLite, a 
company that makes post-ban rifles. ArmaLite offered a coupon for a 
free flash suppressor for anyone who bought one of their guns before 
the ban expired so that, once the ban expired, the gun could be 
modified to its pre-ban configuration.
  The ad even states that, ``It is not legal to install this on a post 
ban rifle until the assault weapons ban sunsets.''

[[Page 4628]]

  This is the kind of thing we can continue to expect--companies once 
again producing deadly assault weapons, high capacity clips, and 
dangerous accessories we worked so hard to stop almost ten years ago.
  The original assault weapons ban was passed before September 11, 
2001, with focus on the use of these military weapons by street 
criminals and gangs. But in the intervening years we have come to 
appreciate the significance of the threat posed by foreign terrorists. 
We know that al Qa'ida and other shadowy terrorist groups may plan to 
attack us here, at home, using these very weapons. A training manual 
found in Afghanistan made clear that al Oa'ida has seen the threat 
posed by these weapons. In fact, some of these guns are the very ones 
being used against our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and in 
Iraq.
  Simply put--these weapons are not just a law enforcement problem. 
They are a homeland security and counter-
terrorism problem. We need to take action to ensure that AK-47s and 
other such assault weapons cannot simply be purchased by a terrorist 
operative in preparation for an attack in the United States.
  I am deeply disappointed that despite support of the American people, 
support of the Congress, and stated support of the President, the 
assault weapons ban was allowed to expire this past fall.
  It is past time to stand up to the NRA and instead listen to law 
enforcement all across the nation who know that this ban makes sense 
and saves lives. It is past time to listen to the studies that show 
that crime with assault weapons of all kinds has decreased by as much 
as 65 percent since the ban took effect almost ten years ago.
  The bottom line is that across this nation everybody knows this ban 
should be law. Law enforcement, mayors, cities, counties, three former 
Presidents, and even George W. Bush himself have said the ban should be 
renewed.
  This time I hope, for the safety of all Americans, President Bush, 
Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert will help re-enact this 
important legislation.

                          ____________________