Commending India on its celebration of Republic Day.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the good State of California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), an original cosponsor of the legislation.

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. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), another original cosponsor of the legislation.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), an original cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), again, an original cosponsor of the legislation.

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 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. 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.

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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who added two very important amendments to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush).

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 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. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking member of the full committee.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. Chairman, I have no other Members seeking recognition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.