Expressing the condolences and deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives for the untimely death of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order, recognizing Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the significance of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. The push for designating an APA Heritage Month started 26 years ago by visionary APA community leaders and also was led from this House by retired Congressman Robert Horton of New York and the current Secretary of Transportation, Norman Y. Mineta.

This year's Heritage Month theme, a Salute to Liberty, is an especially timely theme as our Nation is faced with conflict and tension. We must remember that in the fight to protect our national security, we must also preserve our civil liberties and individual rights. During this month, it is also imperative that we utilize this opportunity to reflect upon and understand our past so we can successfully build for our future. This is a moment of teaching and learning. There have been many histories of Asian Pacific Americans in this country, Mr. Speaker, their origins, their barriers, the barriers that they have overcome in the pursuit to seek the American Dream in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment and sort of share with the community the history of the bill that was passed in 1992, eventually, to recognize the month of May as an official

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

In 1977, Representative Frank Horton, a Representative from New York, and Norman Y. Mineta, from California, introduced the Asian Pacific Heritage Week, House Resolution 540, in the House of Representatives, which called upon the President to proclaim the first 10 days of May as Pacific Asian Heritage Week. The joint resolution did not contain an annual designation, so in 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed the joint resolution put forward by both Representatives Horton and Mineta.

Then, in 1990, Asian American leaders around the country gathered at the White House to witness the signing of a proclamation by President George Bush declaring May to be Asian Pacific Heritage Month. So we went from a week to a month. In 1992, President Bush signed legislation into law designating May of each year as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, it is apropos since this is the month of May we do take some time to recognize those who were important in designating Asian Pacific Heritage Month.

First, why is it important? As a schoolteacher, if we do not teach our history and understand the members of our community's contributions to this country, our children, be they Asian Americans or not, will be less educated and less informed and less appreciative of not only their culture but the cultures of other people.

The growth of the Asian Pacific population from 1980 to 1990 doubled from 3.7 million to approximately 7.3 million. This increase is remarkable when compared to the total increase in the U.S. population of 9.8 percent during that same period.

Then the growth continued to rise another 43 percent from 1990 to 1999. Currently, APAs comprise 4.5 percent of the U.S. population; and by 2050 APAs are expected to comprise 9 percent of the U.S. population. However, in the State of California, the APA population already comprise 11 percent of the general population and grew 34 percent in the past decade, from 2.8 to 3.8 million. This growth, although largely attributed to immigration patterns, is also indicative of more defined data collection methods which has always been a problem in our communities. So the last census it was critical that the census taken was accurate and was as precise as possible.

Data is a cross-cutting issue. Lack of data impacts our understanding of the health problems in our communities, as well as the problems in access and quality. Adequate data collection continues to be a challenge for the APA community.

Although we are often mistaken to be a homogeneous group and sometimes considered perpetual foreigners, APAs in this country encompasses 49 ethnicities speaking over 100 languages and dialects. Aggregating such a large and diverse group makes it difficult to understand the unique problems faced by the individual ethnicities it encompasses.

So when we aggregate Asian Americans as a population, when we look at programs and policies in this country, it is critical that we disaggregate the information so that we are able to be more precise in our policies and programs that we want to target for our communities.

Let me just share a little bit of historical time line. Historically, in 1763 the very first settlement that we know of were some escaped prisoners aboard the Spanish galleons, and they were Filipinos jumping ship in New Orleans. They fled into the bayous of Louisiana, and they established a community called Saint Malo, the first APA settlement in the United States, fleeing the Spanish galleons and seeking freedom in this country.

In 1882, this country saw fit to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Exclusion Act ends most immigration from China until 1943 and denied citizenship to those already present, many of whom were drawn by the gold rush and the Central Pacific Railroad.

As a sideline, we have found out through our research that there have been many Chinese Americans who fought in the Civil War. Upon their petition to become citizens after serving in the military, they were denied citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

In 1868, the Japanese settled in California, first in a community called Alameda in the San Francisco Bay area and secondly in El Dorado County near Sacramento. That colony was name Wahamatsu Colony.

An interesting story of the Wahamatsu Colony, the first colony in this country, was that they first came as refugees from Japan led by a gentleman who was a gunrunner in Japan, Mr. Schell. He had a choice of either facing death or being deported. So he left with his contingent of folks from Japan and established this colony. This colony did not last very long, but it is important to note that the last surviving members of the first colony in the State of California are not Japanese Americans but families of African Americans and Chinese.

So it shows that ethnic groups in this country, when they come to this country, they may be disallowed from intermarrying with the mainstream white groups of this country, but they found ways to raise families and find their way through this country until such time that laws were passed to allow people to earn their citizenship in this country.

In 1912 at the Stockholm Olympics, swimmer Duke Kahinomoku became the first APA to win a Gold Medal. He was later credited with introducing the sport, a sport that is endearing to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the sport of surfing in the United States.

In 1913, the Alien Land Act was passed, and this was specifically in California. The Alien Land Act forced immigrants, primarily Japanese and other APAs, from owning or leasing land; and similar laws were passed in other States throughout the Nation. Subsequently it was rescinded later on in the 1950s.

In 1942, the Japanese American internment occurred. This was following the United States' declaration of war against Japan when Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing the forced relocation and detention of 120,000 Japanese Americans, as well as over 2,000 Japanese Latin Americans. And also in this country it is not well-known that over 7,000 Italian Americans were affected personally, their families, and over 30,000 German Americans were affected.

In 1943, the Japanese American battalion, the 442nd, which was comprised of some 12,000 Japanese Americans, many of them from internment camps, responded to the War Department's call for volunteers for an all-Japanese combat unit. It was not unusual at that time that we had segregated combat units. We had combat units of Indians; we had combat units of blacks and African Americans. At that time around 32,000 were inducted to form the 442 regimental combat team, and we had Members of this House who served in the Regimental Combat 442, the past Congressman Sparky Matsunaga and the current Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.

This combat team became legendary for its success, and it is probably the most decorated military men in the United States history. Their average Purple Heart that this combat unit had inflicted upon them, they had earned almost three Purple Hearts per person, meaning they had to be injured. Each member had to be injured at least three times, so close to 9,000 Purple Hearts were granted recognizing their injuries in the effort to fight the war in Europe.

In 1946, the first Chinese American, Wing F. Ong of Arizona, becomes the first APA to be elected to State office. Asian Americans, we are still looking at firsts. Some day we hope that we will go beyond the first and become a rule rather than an exception.

In 1956, after the first congressman, an Indian American businessman Dalip Singh Saund of Westmoreland, California, became the very first Asian Pacific American elected to Congress, he, however, wanted to become a citizen and could not become a citizen prior to 1952 because there was still a law on the books that disallowed Asian to become citizens. When that law was rescinded, he was able to participate in the halls of Congress.

In 1964, the first congresswoman, Patsy Takemoto Mink is the first woman of color and the first Asian Pacific congresswoman to represent Hawaii in the halls of Congress. We know

that we lost her just recently, and it was a terrible loss to not only Asian Americans but Americans throughout this country and to all those who believe that those who have never forgotten their roots and their past come to Congress making sure that the idea that equality and opportunities for all Americans, regardless of their background, must be met and must be respected.

In 1965, a labor activist named Philip Vera Cruz organizes a successful strike of fellow Filipino grape pickers in Coachella, California. This gentleman began the movement that leads to the formation of the United Farm Workers of America where eventually Cesar Chevaz became the head leader and recognized for his work and his philosophy of peace and nonviolent activism.

In 1968, there was an ethnic studies strike. Students of color from San Francisco State University and UC Berkley organize a Third World strike. Their efforts led to the creation of ethnic studies departments at both campuses and eventually across this country.

I have to say that because of the work of folks in ethnic studies, which was a movement that did not have much support among the scholastic circles until recently, that we found all this information that would lead to children, present and in the future, being able to understand that Asian Americans are not recent immigrants and Asian Americans have contributed to the development of this country.

Further, the most valuable player in 1969 was a Filipino American. He played for the Los Angeles Rams as a quarterback, and his name was Roman Gabriel. He was recognized as the league's Most Valuable Player.

The first governor in 1974 was a Japanese governor named George Ariyoshi; and he was elected governor of Hawaii, the first APA governor in the United States.

And in 1981, a Chinese American architecture student, Maya Lin, her design was chosen for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in a national competition. She becomes one of the most widely recognized architects in the United States, and her work can be seen here in Washington, D.C., at the Vietnam Memorial.

In 1982, a young man, Vincent Chin, who was celebrating the event of his marriage, was murdered. He was murdered in Detroit, Michigan. Two white auto workers mistook Chin for Japanese and blamed him for the auto industry's woes and the downturn in the economy. He was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. The courts were lenient on the killers, and none of them served a day in jail. This incident became a rallying point for the national APA community. His mom went across this country seeking justice and eventually had some justice through the civil rights law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my sharing of information on the chronological order. After the American internment, in 1990 we had a gentleman by the name of Chang-Lin Tien who became the first APA to head a major university in the United States when he was appointed chancellor of the University of Berkeley. He distinguished himself not only because he led the campus as a chancellor but he also became known by the students on that campus, which is quite rare. He also allowed the students to feel that they were part of a community. He was a great proponent of affirmative action. He was a great proponent of making sure that he modeled what it is that he believed by his own personal life. He also was probably the most prodigious and prolific fund-raiser that university system has ever seen. He just passed away a year ago from brain cancer. We shall miss him dearly; but his work and his model, his expectation continues to live in that system and in the State of California.

In 1992, Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles uprisings took place. The L.A. uprisings followed the verdict in the Rodney King trial. Property loss was valued at $1 billion with Korean American businesses bearing half the damage. Relations between Korean Americans and African Americans became a focal point of community activism. Today when visiting Los Angeles, one will find that the two communities are working hand in hand to make sure that they learn from each other and can grow with each other and that neither one is targeted in times of tension.

In 1996 there was a victory for Asian immigrant women workers. After a 3\1/2\ year national campaign, APA immigrant women and Asian immigrant women advocates reached a historic agreement with clothing manufacturer Jessica McClintock to protect garment laborers.

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 something happened in the State of Washington. Not only can Hawaii boast of an Asian American Governor but also the State of Washington elected its first Asian American Governor, Gary Locke from the State of Washington. He enjoys quite a bit of leadership. Today he is the chair of the Governors association. In 1996, AIDS research reached a point of distinction. A gentleman by the name of David Ho was named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for his work in AIDS research. He developed the protease inhibitor cocktail treatment which adds years to the lives of many AIDS patients. David Ho.

In 1997, there was a woman in space. She was an Asian Pacific American. Astronaut Kalpana Chawla became the first Indo-American and APA woman in space. She died in the breakup of the Columbia Space Shuttle returning to Earth this year, in February 2003.

The first APA man in the Cabinet was selected by President Bill Clinton when he appointed former Congressman Norman Mineta Secretary of Commerce. He is the first APA member of the Presidential Cabinet. Earlier in his career, Mineta was the first APA mayor of a major metropolitan city, San Jose. Then in the next administration under George Bush, George Bush saw fit to ask Norm Mineta to serve as Secretary of Transportation. We are enjoying his leadership currently as Secretary of Transportation.

In 2002, an APA woman legislator by the name of Wilma Chan of Alameda, California, is a State legislator but she rose to the Democratic majority leader of the California State Assembly. There are other firsts, Mr. Speaker. The first Hmong attorney. The Hmongs came from Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War. The Hmongs were scattered throughout this country but eventually assembled both in Fresno, California, and in Minnesota. Mee Moua was a young woman who was an attorney and became the first woman and first Hmong attorney and first member of the Hmong community to be elected to the Minnesota State Senate. Shortly after that, Cy Thao became the first Hmong assemblyman in the State of Minnesota. There is also in the State of Minnesota the first Indo-American, Satveer Chaudhary. He hails from Minnesota, also.

There was the first APA woman in the Cabinet. President George W. Bush appointed Elaine Chao to be Secretary of Labor. She is the very first APA woman to hold a Presidential Cabinet post.

Mr. Speaker, in this country there are many firsts. We have John Liu who is the very first Asian American to sit on the City of New York's city council representing the 20th district.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). And I yield, Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her words and her support not only here in the halls of Congress but also back home in Houston and Texas in general. Her work and the work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) really just show that there is power in collaboration and being able to work together not only as individuals but as a coalition for the betterment of every American in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch a little bit on the internment story of the Japanese Americans in this country. It is a story that needs to be told over and over again because it is not a Japanese American history lesson. It is not a Japanese American experience only. It is not a Japanese American lesson, but it is really rooted deeply in what I would consider an American lesson.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 61st anniversary of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signing of Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942; and it is the 15th anniversary of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

In 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 pursuant to which 120,000 Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. Many of these families lost their property and possessions during the several years they were jailed behind barbed wire.

On February 19, 1976, President Gerald Ford formally rescinded Executive Order 9066; and July 21, 1980, became the beginning of reconciling our past to the present. Congress adopted legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter on July 31, 1980, establishing the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate the claim that the incarceration of Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens during World War II was not justified by military necessity. The outcome of that commission, Mr. Speaker, the commission had held 20 days of hearings and listened to testimony of over 720 witnesses, and published its findings in a report entitled ``Personal Justice Denied.'' The principal finding in 1982 was that the promulgation of Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity and that the decision which followed from it, detention, ending detention and ending exclusion, were not driven by analysis of military conditions, but rather the causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.

With a strong bipartisan vote, Congress passed H.R. 442, the Civil Liberties Act, which states in part: ``For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.'' President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act into law on August 10, 1988, at which time he proclaimed: ``This is a great day for America.''

In 1998, as a member of the California State Assembly, I authored the State version of the Civil Liberties Act, understanding that the work was still not done once the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 had expired.

I mention these dates and this timing, Mr. Speaker, because today it is even more important, more important than ever, to speak up against unjust policies. It is also more important than ever to educate Americans of the Japanese American experience during World War II, as well as the experience of other groups like Japanese Latin Americans who were expatriated from their country at the request of our government; and then while they were on the ships on their way to the United States to be interned in Crystal City, Texas, they were stripped of all their papers and became people without a country. And certain German and Italian Americans in this country were also mistreated, many of whom were forced in the middle of the night to leave their homes and pledge allegiance to the Flag in the middle of the night in order to show that to their neighbors, who forced them out, to prove that they were loyal and patriotic Americans during that time.

It is also important to learn the important lessons from our own history in the resolution I introduced, H.R. 56, the Day of Remembrance resolution, which is still in the Committee on the Judiciary. Teaching the lessons of those dark days is more important today than it ever was. By remembering, Executive Order 9066 that was signed on February 19, 1942, does not become an anniversary just on February 19 but is an anniversary that must be remembered and lived and understood every day of the year, every year for the future of this country, because the lessons that were learned were lessons that were principally rooted in the Constitution of this country, the Constitution which was a contract between our government and the people who are here in this country, a contract that is signed on paper called the Declaration of Independence, a contract that is immutable and cannot be

changed and should not be changed, a contract that promises everyone who is in this country due process and the protection of their civil liberties. It is a contract that has been protected. It is a contract that has been fought for and a contract which members of this country who served in the military have shed their blood overseas for, who left their limbs in the islands of the Pacific and on the European continent.

These Americans must be remembered as part of the lessons that we learned from the Japanese American experience that the Constitution is a contract worth protecting and dying for. We must remember that this Constitution was written back in 1776, but yet it is an evolving, growing Constitution that over time has included not only white men with properties but those who used to be slaves; those immigrants whose laws were passed against them which eventually were rescinded became citizens of this country; those immigrants who came just recently after the Vietnam War, and even today people are still seeking to find refuge in this country even at times when we seem to appear to be inhospitable to the immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, the lessons learned during the internment when we thought that we were protecting Japanese Americans for their own safety was actually a myth because if it were true, then as my father used to tell me, he wondered why if we were here for our protection, why would the barbed wires be around us, the machines pointing in on us. And my father used to still tell me, though, that, as I grew up, to be 110 percent American; that we must also remember that the contributions that have been invested in this country of our parents and grandparents are well worth it, that we must also learn that even though this country is faced with challenges since 9-11 that in spite of the war on terrorism that we still have to remember the constitutional principles by which we live.

When 9-11 occurred, the ugly head of racial prejudice appeared again as it did in 1942. Hysteria started to take over some hearts in this country, and as a result people like Balbir Singh Sodhi, an immigrant and a Sikh American from Fremont, California, moved to Mesa, Arizona to start a business there and because he looked like the enemy to the perpetrator, he was murdered and shot there in his store. And then coincidentally another year later, his brother Sukhpal Singh Sodhi was a taxi driver in San Francisco who was shot and murdered in San Francisco merely because he appeared to be a Middle Easterner and those who murdered him thought that they were vindicated because they played upon and acted upon their prejudice and their hysteria and their hatred.

It did not become a wave of murders and hangings here in this country, for I believe that, because of the history that we have been able to share, that many of us checked our fears and checked our emotions and made sure that we did not respond or succumb to our base fears.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Members of this Congress also participated in making sure that the people of our country remembered and learned from the history of the internment, that racial profiling is unacceptable, and although we are in the throes of fear and the issues of national security that we must exercise our common sense, our good sense, and exercise our understanding of the principles of the Constitution.

We know that after 9/11 and after certain acts were passed, such as the PATRIOT Act, that we must seek the critical balance between civil liberties and private liberties with national security; and the Constitution continues to be tested as we move along, looking towards a possible second PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer, my hope, that Members of this body remember that Asian Americans were pioneers establishing this country. The Asian Americans were laborers building this country. The Asian Americans are doctors, lawyers, teachers and politicians, providing for the health and welfare of this Nation; and we, like every other American, are red-blooded Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a couple of comments that became a lesson for me personally as I have been here my third year and my experience and seeing the works of the halls of Congress here in Washington, D.C.

I believe that the very basic lesson I have learned is not only from the experience that my community has had in 1942, the kinds of lessons we learned since then and the kinds of teachings that we have learned, but I also started to understand that the last century was a century of wars, a century of conflict, a century of trauma, and that the promise that we have in this new century should be the century of reconciliation and peace.

Now that the Cold War is gone, we have a challenge of facing conflicts in other ways. A wise man once said to me that peace, Mike, is not an absence of conflict, but a way, a manner, in which you can deal with conflict.

So, in closing, the primary lesson I have learned these past few years, Mr. Speaker, is that our Constitution is never tested in times of tranquility, but our Constitution is sorely tested in times of trauma, terror and tragedy, and that the very fiber of the American character and this country should be embodied and should be learned from the very words and the principles and the rights embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to utilize this time to share some of the information that we have had, share some of the information with the general public, and hopefully the records would reflect that Asian Americans in this country came with a dream, they worked hard and participated, they faced barriers and overcame them, and that can only happen over time in a country and a democracy like ours, where evolution and evolving sentiments and policies in this country only lead us forward, that we learn from our mistakes, and that only makes us stronger and better Americans and a greater America.

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.

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for moving this piece of legislation.

Just a few moments ago, we discussed a resolution in support of Republic Day in India, the world's largest democracy, and a country with a rich, long tradition and of great importance to the United States. This resolution addresses a relatively new and small democracy, the Republic of Macedonia, but also of importance to the United States.

Our friend, the Republic of Macedonia, has just lost its leader. Two weeks ago, the man many believed would lead Macedonia was tragically killed in a plane crash. Now, the future of Macedonia is uncertain. The next president of Macedonia may or may not stay on the course charted by Mr. Trajkovski. The next president of Macedonia may or may not work to bring all Macedonians together. The next president may or may not have the esteem Mr. Trajkovski commanded. I certainly hope the next president of Macedonia is able to do all of these things.

As is typical in many new democracies behind the old Iron Curtain, President Trajkovski did not have a long record of public service. In 1997, Mr. Trajkovski became Chief of Office in a local government administration. In 1988, he was appointed to the post of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. In 1999, he was inaugurated president of the Republic of Macedonia. What Mr. Trajkovski's public service lacked in longevity, however, it more than made up for in terms of quality and the impact that his policies and principles will have far into Macedonia's future.

During Macedonia's ethnic troubles, he realized that peace was better than war. He reached out to the Albanians and Macedonians alike. As a Methodist minister in an Orthodox Christian country, establishing trust, even among his own people, was no small feat. Yet Mr. Trajkovski brokered a peaceful solution that avoided the further balkanization of the region. It is a little sea of hope in the midst of much conflict.

In looking forward to the future of his country, President Trajkovski realized that economic development was the key to the success of Macedonia. He encouraged investment, free markets, and great international participation. Indeed, he died on his way to an international investors conference. President Trajkovski's contribution to his country's stability and prosperity will not soon be forgotten.

Macedonia worked with the United States in the conflict in Serbia, letting us base multiple operations there, including camps for those who had fled Kosovo, with no small risk to the stability in their country. They are a great friend of the United States, as we have heard, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was my privilege to meet President Trajkovski a number of times, and he was a dynamic man. But while he was a great leader as president, he was much more. He was also a good man and a Godly man. He lived his faith, and it undoubtedly influenced every single decision he made in his life and in his leadership. As a devoted family man with a wife and two children, he worked hard to make sure his children had a better future. I have gotten word that the government of Macedonia is working to support the Trajkovski family's future needs. Given the contribution Mr. Trajkovski made to his country, I am glad his family is not forgotten.

In 1996, Mr. Trajkovski visited the United States in order to study the

democratic political process. Judging from his presidency, I would say he learned a great deal. During his time in the United States, he visited my district. The several thousand strong Macedonian community of northeast Indiana maintains close ties with friends and relatives of Macedonia. They are very informed about the political and economic situation there. With the death of Mr. Trajkovski, I am sure they are very concerned what the future holds for the homeland.

In recent days, many people have remembered Boris Trajkovski. One remembrance in particular stands out. In a moving article I am submitting for the Record, Jason Miko, an American living in Macedonia, recalls not only President Trajkovski, a powerful leader, but also Boris Trajkovski, a simple man of the people. I would like to read one paragraph in closing.

He writes: ``Since thoughts are even now turning to the next president, it is vital to remember the legacy that Boris leaves. More than almost any other figure in the Balkans in modern history, he did the most to bring people together. He was respected by all ethnic groups and had a vision for this country which was 20 years ahead. He often talked about rights, together with individual responsibility, the importance of a civil society together with the need for social communication. But his most important message was one of reconciliation, love, and forgiveness.''

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the complete article from which I just read:

[From the Macedonian Vreme, Mar. 2, 2004]

My Friend Boris

(By Jason Miko)

My friend Boris Trajkovski passed away last week. I rarely

called him ``Boris.'' I usually called him ``Mr. President.''

Sometimes, when we prayed, I referred to him as ``my brother,

Boris.'' He wasn't hung up on titles and ceremony and frankly

didn't care what people called him though I know he was a

little bit hurt when some people in Macedonia referred to him

as ``citizen Trajkovski'' during his first year in office. I

think they probably regret that now. They should.

I first met Boris Trajkovski in early 1997. I had moved to

Macedonia in the summer of 1996 and got to know him through

an American friend of mine who had introduced me to a

Macedonian friend of his who knew Boris very well. I honestly

cannot remember the very first time we met, but I will never

forget the last.

He wasn't my president, but over the past seven years, I

came to know Boris as a very dear friend. And while I had the

high honor and privilege of seeing him go from international

secretary in his party to deputy foreign minister to

president, the friendship never changed. We shared a

friendship that transcended disagreements, difficult periods,

and misunderstandings. Boris was always there for me and he

told me about two weeks ago how he loved me. And I know his

love was not limited to his family or friends. He loved his

fellow citizens and his country as much as his family and

friends. He was a big man with a big heart.

When September 11th occurred, his was the third call I

received. The first was from a friend telling me of the

disaster and the second was from my parents in Arizona.

Another time I remember when he asked me to give strong

consideration to hiring a friend of his (long before he was

president), in my organization. I didn't hire his friend, but

that didn't change our friendship.

It is ironic in a way. Since the tragedy last week,

Macedonians of all political stripes and colors, all ethnic

groups, all social classes and all religious groupings have

been in a funk, a state of shock, at the loss. Boris is much

more popular now in death, than he ever was in life. The

international community, too, is still reeling from the loss,

now coming to the full realization of what a treasure we all

had and took for granted. That seems to be the way life works

though.

We've heard many people over the past week talk about Boris

and say he was their friend. I believe most of them are

sincere though I also know that there is, even now, some

political posturing going on. I know that Boris held no

grudges against anyone and even though he could get angry at

people for what they said and did to him, he didn't remain

angry for very long. He was that sort of a man--forgiving,

understanding and loving. It's a shame we are only now

realizing that.

Boris was a rare individual. He stood for what he believed

in and he fought for the values he held dear. He was real,

not phony like some politicians can be. In fact, in many

ways, he wasn't even a politician. I clearly remember, in the

summer of 1999, as the Kosovo crisis was ending and thoughts

were turning to the presidential elections of the fall, the

enthusiasm that people had for him as a candidate. And

truthfully, he hadn't even thought of running for president

himself until ordinary Macedonians started encouraging him to

run. Coming from humble roots in rural Macedonia, he was

truly a man of the people and for the people.

Over the past four plus years of his mandate, Boris was

able to mingle with the highest and mightiest on this earth

and with the most humble. And while he was comfortable in

both situations--with kings and queens, presidents and prime

ministers on the one hand--he enjoyed himself most with

villagers and working men and women of his native Macedonia.

How many other elected officials do you know who have gone

into villages throughout this country speaking with the

common man and woman listening to their hopes, fears and

dreams? I hope that you, as Macedonian citizens, will demand

that of your next president. It is the legacy that Boris

would want.

And since thoughts are even now turning to the next

President, it is vital to remember the legacy that Boris

leaves. More than almost any other figure in the Balkans in

modern history, he did the most to bring people together. He

was respected by all ethnic groups and had a vision for this

country which was 20 years ahead. He often talked about

rights, together with individual responsibility, the

importance of a civil society together with the need for

social communication. But is most important message was one

of reconciliation, love and forgiveness.

These values he held came from his deep faith and

convictions. And while he was indeed a Methodist, it is not

important to focus on his chosen religious denomination, but

on the tenants of that faith. His deep love for the Son of

God--Jesus Christ--and his recognition that man is sinful and

needs salvation--prompted him to talk about and live a life

of love for all mankind. I remember him--on many occasions--

talking about how he was willing to ``sacrifice myself'' for

Macedonia. And ultimately, Boris did pay the ultimate price

for his fellow man and his country--he gave us his life. He

gave Macedonia his life that Macedonia might come together

and yet live again.

I hope that by giving up his life for his fellow man that

something good will come of this. Something good must come of

this. It can start here in Macedonia but it can spread

throughout the Balkans and the world. And it is this: a life

lived for his fellow man, and a deep love for his family, his

country and for God. The international community, in the

meantime, can help continue Boris' legacy by finally

recognizing the name--the Republic of Macedonia. Boris would

want this.

I was with Boris last Wednesday, until about 5:30 p.m.,

about 14 hours before he left us for a better place. We were

discussing the future, his plans, upcoming trips and the

like. How short life is and how foolish the plans of man

indeed! In a blinding instant it all changed, for Macedonia,

for the Balkans, for the world, forever. It changed for his

family, his friends, his fellow countrymen and for the

international community. For people such as myself, and my

friend Boris, however, we have a hope of things yet to come.

Our faith tells us that one day we will be reunited together

along with many others. In the meantime, what life we have

left here on earth should be dedicated to spreading his

legacy, a legacy of love, forgiveness, reconciliation and

friendship. That is what my friend Boris would want.

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.