Interstate 3/3rd Infantry Division Highway Initiation Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman help us define what inappropriate is? Does the gentlewoman think that the film ``Saving Private Ryan,'' which depicted the incredible sacrifice by American troops on D-Day, is inappropriate and should have been kept off of ABC?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, but this bill leads to self-censorship. Small stations who are fined a half a million dollars are going to be very cautious. ``Saving Private Ryan'' was kept off of dozens of ABC affiliates because they were afraid of a fine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and opposition to the underlying legislation.

As someone who voted in favor of similar legislation last year, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today.

This censorship is being done by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media; but it is also significantly being done by the government, and that is what this bill is about today. What we are seeing is an increasing and insidious chill on free expression in the airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress on that side of the aisle, my conservative friends, who talk about freedom and freedom and freedom; but apparently they really do not believe that the American people should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what programs they see on television or on the radio.

There are a lot of people in Congress, including Conservatives, who talk about the intrusive role of government regulators; but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that.

A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society. Mr. Speaker, I am not a Conservative. I am a proud Progressive. But on this issue, I agree with some important conservative thinkers. Let me tell my colleagues what Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, extremely conservative think tank, says, and he has it right: ``Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times, but that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family. Censorship on an individual parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is permitted to see, hear, or think.''

That is and that should be the Conservative position. That should be the position of people who say get the government off our backs; we do not want government regulations.

Mr. Speaker, increasingly in this country we are seeing censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org, and on and on it goes.

Let us vote ``no.'' Let us vote against this bill and support freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without saying.

As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the American people should have the ``freedom'' to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of ``government regulators,'' but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute--a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth:

Those of use who are parents understand that raising a

child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task

at times. But

that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in

to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of

the public without children.

Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in

mind, I take great offense at the notion that government

officials must do this job for me and every other American

family.

Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental

part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government

level is an entirely different matter because it means a

small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole

nation is permitted to see, hear or think.

I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so

many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal

and parental responsibility about most economic issues,

seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural

issues.

Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?

Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the airwaves. In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in cheating the Federal deficit. Last November, 66 ABC affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this problem and make a bad situation worse.

This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans' First Amendment rights.

In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my own State of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this legislation will have on programming decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.

Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public

Television on H.R. 310

Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters,

does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local

community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility

to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there

must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public

airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in H.R. 310 are

extreme.

The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity,

indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on

broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public

Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint

easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying

these proposals into law will make the situation worse.

While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed

at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling

the effects every day. Public television's educational

programming for children has always provided a safe haven.

The same public television stations that take such care of

their young viewers also respect the intelligence and

discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing

choices for themselves.

Vermont Public Television has always operated

responsibility in our programming for adults. At times, our

programs included adult language and situations appropriate

to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While

there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous

indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it

seems that context is no longer considered.

Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights,

we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single

violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small

station like VPT out of business.

Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told

broadcasters there was one word that would never be

appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations,

including Vermont Public Television, began to make content

choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.

PBS programmers began making edits to national programs

being distributed to stations. An ``American Experience''

documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might

possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just be to sure.

On ``Antiques Roadshow,'' a nude poster was edited. This

month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called

``Dirty War.'' In the story, a woman showers to remove

radiation. When the program airs on PBS, that shower scene

will be edited.

Our programming director, and no doubt most local

programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts

telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or

situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing

programs with words and situations that might even come close

to content that could be subject to fines.

At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists

representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers

live on the air. There has never been a problem with

language, but the legislation's reference to using a ``time

delay blocking mechanism'' makes us worry. We don't use a

time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a

caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?

Our programming director says the FCC proposals have

already made us rule out airing independent films on our

``Reel Independent'' program. Films by Vermont filmmakers

that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted

for broadcast now.

We cannot support H.R. 310 as it is written.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Virginia and congratulate her on her first rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill, but I am disappointed that the rule will not let us engage today in the debate that this House and our country desperately need to have, a debate about how the lack of standards in the broadcast media is threatening some of our most basic democratic values.

The underlying bill, which I supported last year and intend to support again today, addresses a very narrow part of the problem of decency within broadcasting. It increases the penalties on media companies who openly flaunt the FCC's rules against obscene broadcasts.

Mr. Speaker, when we give media companies the right to broadcast in our communities on our airwaves, one of the few things we ask in return is they refrain from broadcasting lewd, indecent programs during the hours that children may be listening or watching. That does not seem like a lot to ask, but many media companies seem to find it hard to comply even with the most basic rule, a rule most Americans practice every day in their lives.

Put simply, you do not say crude or offensive things when you are a guest in somebody's home and their children are in the room. This is an American value that we can all embrace, so I would ask why the standards are different for the media. The bottom line is that they should not be.

The FCC has fined a number of broadcast licensees over the past several years for lewd and inappropriate broadcasts, and I hope that the increased penalties in the bill will make these companies think twice before they do it again. But with all the money they make, I doubt that. But refraining from obscene broadcasts does not mean that our media companies are fulfilling their obligation to broadcasts in the public interest. In fact, I would submit that an even greater indecency is the declining standards of fairness, accountability and truth in America's broadcast media today. After all, should we not ensure that our broadcast media present a diversity of views about the most important issues that face the country? Issues upon which our democracy depends should at least be as important as regulating the words and images we allow broadcasters to use in sit-coms and Super Bowl half-time shows.

Sweeps Week stunts only underscore how these large, distant media companies routinely sweep important local news, balance, truth, and objectivity under the rug. I am talking here about core American values, values that most of us were taught as children and practice every day: be accountable for what you say and do; be truthful and fair in your dealings; balance your approach to life. But time and time again, we have failed to demand that mega-media corporations uphold these most basic American values. And all this despite the fact that the same companies use the public airwaves broadcasting into our homes every night and are the primary tool that most Americans use to learn about the world around them.

Ever since the Reagan administration rescinded the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 our broadcast standards have not only been in just a steep decline but they are fast approaching extinction.

When newspeople present political opinion as hard news with no accountability or fact for truth, I call that indecent. When it becomes common practice to pay members of the media to deceptively advocate a political agenda on public airwaves without disclosure to the public, I call that indecent. When a television broadcaster uses his license to present one-sided, factually erroneous documentaries designed to impact the outcome of a national election without equal time or standard for truth, I call that indecent and dangerous.

And what about the so-called reporter who gained access to the White House press room under dubious circumstances to ask loaded rhetorical questions without even his colleagues, much less his audience, knowing he is a fraud? I call that overwhelmingly indecent.

In a relatively short time, we have abandoned the high ethical standards of truth and objectivity demonstrated by such giants as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite in favor of the bias of pseudo- journalism demonstrated by Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, and Bill O'Reilly. This is a sure recipe for the dumbing-down of America.

In fact, USA Today reported yesterday that despite the fact that 60 percent of Americans get their news from local television, those same companies have nearly given up covering local political races and issues in recent years. According to the article, in the month leading up to the last election, the one just passed, just 8 percent of the local evening newscasts in 11 of the Nation's largest TV markets devoted time to local races and issues.

Ninety-two of them paid no attention. That is 8 percent. In other words, for every minute of news that they show, they spend 4.8 seconds discussing the issues that shape our neighborhoods, our communities and our families, and for most Americans, that is the only news they will get.

Enough is enough. The public deserves better. The American people

know they are being deceived. They are fed up, and they are taking action to do something about it.

Look at the 2 million comments that ordinary Americans sent to the FCC to stop even more media consolidation from taking place last year. The public expects us to do more. They expect us to act in their interests. They expect us to defend and uphold their values, values we should all share: truth, honesty, objectivity and balance. We can do so much more than what we are just discussing here today.

When the committee met to report this rule last night, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I brought amendments to the committee that we thought would broaden this debate today into the one we really ought to be having.

The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) amendment would have rolled back broadcast media consolidation rules to their pre-2003 levels, and my amendment would restore the fairness doctrine and bring more accountability to the news, but we were rejected.

They only wanted to talk today about decency, and we were not germane to the bill. In a technical sense, they may be correct, but we all know that to have a real debate on what is happening to our culture today, the House would have to talk about the issues our amendments address. Sadly, that will not happen today.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate, I intend to call for a no vote on the previous question so that I may modify the rule to allow for consideration of my amendment on fairness and accountability in broadcasting, and I hope that all Members of this House will join me in voting against the previous question to have this opportunity to restore fairness and accuracy in the media.

I only hope that in the 109th Congress we will have that discussion. Our democracy could very well depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

In response to my colleague, at the end I am going to amend this rule to include what we are trying to do and what the speakers are speaking to. So that is perfectly legitimate for us to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment that there is censorship because the Democrats are not allowed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can change the rule to include my amendment to restore fairness and accountability in the media by requiring broadcast licensees to air programming that offers diverse views on issues important to the local communities in which they broadcast. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday but was defeated on a party line vote. The majority may claim that the amendment is technically nongermane to the bill, but I think it is an integral part of this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not a partisan one. Every Member of the House should be concerned by the direction that the broadcast media has taken, particularly in the last two decades since the rescission of the fairness doctrine. Ratings and sensationalism far too often replace responsible, nonbiased, and comprehensive reporting of the news. News is meant to provide balanced and important information on the issues that impact the lives of our citizens. The media has a most important responsibility to its communities to deliver the type of programming that meets the unique needs of each broadcast audience. In fact, it is more than a responsibility, it is an obligation.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can include this important amendment. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering the legislation. We will still be able to consider the broadcast decency enforcement bill in its entirety. We will still be able to consider and vote on the Upton- Markey manager's amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from having any opportunity this year, and probably this term, to debate and vote on the very serious matter of media fairness and responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 95 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. This is a fair rule that I believe all Members of the House should be able to support.

This bipartisan bill brings penalties for network television programming to modern standards. The legislation also enhances the Federal Communications Commission's ability to reprimand networks and individuals who violate indecency standards.

In the last few years, there have been several instances that have prompted the need for this legislation. Two immediately come to mind. During the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, pop star Bono of the band U2 used offensive language while accepting an award on live television; and, of course, there is the infamous debacle that was the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show which I, by the way, was watching with my own family.

Each incident occurred during prime time hours and both programs were widely viewed by families across the Nation. Parents should not have to be unwillingly subjected to vulgar behavior and blatant disregard for what is appropriate for prime time viewing hours.

Provisions in H.R. 310 will increase the FCC fines for indecent broadcasts from $32,000 per incident to $500,000 per incident which will be applied to the network and other parties who knowingly participated and approved of the broadcast. There is also a 3-strikes provision that will give the FCC the option of revoking broadcast licenses of frequent offenders. This legislation protects local networks and broadcast companies from fines if they did not have prior knowledge, if they did not give approval or were unable to prevent the indecent broadcast from the parent company or network from happening in the first place. This provision judiciously places responsibility where it truly lies by protecting innocent parties.

I am a strong supporter of this bipartisan legislation. We have made many strides in recent years providing parents with rating information they can use to determine what is appropriate for their children to view. We cannot tolerate instances where G-rated programming is intentionally and unknowingly to the audience turned into R-rated programming.

These are good changes to improve the quality of television available to our children and families. I urge my colleagues to support the Upton-Markey manager's amendment. It is a strong bipartisan amendment that makes necessary clarifications and improvements to this legislation. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my distinguished colleague and new member of the Committee on Rules with me.

(Mr. COLE of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

I would like to remind the Members that the issue that we are speaking about today in this bill is the raising of the fines for indecency, caused by several incidents, I think over a million, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) quoted last night in our Committee on Rules meeting, instances of inappropriate viewing on our television and our airwaves and on our radios.

So I think to keep the focus of this bill and this rule is important for the Members to realize that this is something that goes right to the crux of our families.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I think the standard for inappropriate on the airwaves has been established by the FCC, and they are the ones.

This bill does not speak to that. This bill speaks to raising of the fines.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in wrapping up my previous statement, I just want to realize what the focus of this bill and what the focus of the rule is on.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a couple of comments regarding the gentleman's observations.

I did not state it was inappropriate to debate this on the House floor, and I am only speaking about the indecency and the raising of fines in terms of a standard that is set by our Federal courts. So I take exception with that.

I also take exception with his ownership of democracy. This is what democracy is. We are debating democracy, we

are debating issues on the House floor, which we do every single day, and I am proud to be a part of that.

The other thing I would say in terms of the bill we are discussing, I think it is important to remember that over 2 years ago, I believe, we passed this bill in enormous bipartisan fashion. It was brought to the committee by both the chairman and the minority Chair of that committee in unison in terms of the manager's amendment and the intent of the bill. So I believe that Members will know this is a bill we have worked on before.

Personally, I was raised in the 1950s and 1960s, when I used to sit down and watch ``Bonanza'' and the ``Wide World of Disney.'' My mother did not have to have the remote control in her hand, which they did not have at the time anyway, to make sure I did not see anything inappropriate. All we are trying to do here is to raise the level of fines for those who willfully and intentionally have indecent and inappropriate action on television.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a new member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, most of this debate has focused not on the issue before the House, whether we should raise fines on broadcasters and artists for violating the FCC standards for indecent conduct, but on the unrelated issue of media fairness. I want to point out to the Members that the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from New York would violate House rules because it is not germane to the underlying bill. Simply, we have broad bipartisan agreement that we need to be tougher on broadcasters and artists to make sure that children and parents are not surprised by indecent conduct during prime time. We should defer to the committee of jurisdiction, I believe, to evaluate the issues raised by the gentlewoman's well-intentioned but nongermane amendment.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the FCC has been looking at this issue of indecency and the fines related to it and it is through their efforts that this bipartisan bill has come to bear.

This is about the preservation of family time on our airwaves. It is about preserving the core values and ridding the airwaves during family time of indecency and it ups and makes much more stringent the penalties of those broadcasters and artists who engage in this indecent and inappropriate behavior on the airwaves.

One of the things my colleague from New York said in her opening statement is that viewers need to know what they will see, and I think that is the crux of this bill and this rule. Viewers need to know, families need to know that when they sit down with their families to watch television, they are not going to be exposed to inappropriate and indecent comments or actions on the airwaves.

This is a bipartisan bill. It passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress. I believe it will pass overwhelmingly again here. I urge my colleagues to not only support the rule but to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the comments from the floor manager of the bill made clear one of the major goals of the Republican Party. It is to shorten the attention span of the American people.

Among the things they think are inappropriate are not just things we might see on television but things we might hear on the floor of the House. The gentlewoman apparently thinks it is inappropriate for us to discuss on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the issue of media concentration.

That is what we are talking about. The gentlewoman said no, no, no, you are off the subject. Well, many of us believe that excessive media concentration is a subject that ought to be addressed, and it is, of course, the intention of the majority party not to allow that to be discussed. Inappropriate to criticize those corporations that are increasing media ownership.

The gentleman from Oklahoma said this is a fair rule. Well it is fair if the scale is poor, fair, good and excellent. In that case, I guess it is a fair rule because my colleagues let in one amendment.

We will be debating, after this rule is adopted, the substance of this bill, probably the only bill that the majority will allow on our communications matter, for 1 hour and 20 minutes; 1 hour and 20 minutes. If the Provisional Assembly in Iraq gave only an hour and 20 minutes to a subject, we would be very critical of them.

Once again I have to say, with regard to the people in Iraq who have been elected to the Provisional Assembly and who we are urging to practice democracy and respect minority rights, if any of them happen to be watching this proceeding, please do not try this at home. Please show more respect for full discussion than these people are showing.

Now, I also want to talk about indecency. It may be one of my last chances to do it because the gentleman from Vermont is correct. What this has done, this furor, is to lead to censorship, self-censorship, but also censorship by the administration.

I regret things like the Janet Jackson incident and what happened with her and that guy, but I think we have a greater danger now. The greater danger is the censorship of the free and open debate of this country. I guess I have more confidence than the majority in the families of America and the parents to be the main protectors of their children, not the majority party; and instead what happens is we have the Secretary of Education criticizing PBS and pressuring them not to run a show because it showed two lesbians.

I guess maybe I am speaking out of self-interest. If these people keep this up, we just had some fool in the Department of Health and Human Services insist that a panel on youth suicide aimed at gay, lesbian, and transgendered teenagers not use the words gay, lesbian and transgendered, because those things are inappropriate; showing lesbians is inappropriate.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, if some of these people had their way, I would be bleeped. I guess there would be a blank screen when I appeared on here, lest some people be somehow corrupted by the very fact that a gay man takes the floor of the House to talk about a rule that is undemocratic and a furor that leads to ``Saving Private Ryan'' being shut off, that leads to PBS being pressured not to show young people that there is in this world such a thing as lesbians, because that might somehow corrupt them.

I voted for this bill last year, so I am grateful to the majority for one thing. I voted for it, and it resulted in a degree of pressure and a degree of intimidation and a degree of intolerance and a failure to understand the value of free debate that I regretted and felt a little guilty about. So I am glad I have a chance to vote against it, as I will do.

But I regret very much that the gentlewoman from West Virginia and those in the majority feel it is inappropriate to discuss media concentrations or any oppositions that might exist. And that is where we are today. We have a bill that will, I believe, result in more censorship, in more excessive attention to a fairly small problem while ignoring very large ones.

I should say, finally, Mr. Speaker, understand why we have to cut this debate so short: because of our workload. We might actually be here until 4 o'clock this Wednesday, today, and we may even begin tomorrow. Of course, we are getting ready for a 10-day recess, so we may need a little extra time to relax. This House has met very little, we have done very little, and so the refusal of the majority to allow a debate on the important topics that we are talking about here, the effort by the gentlewoman from West Virginia to chide us, to say do not bring up media concentration and all those unimportant irrelevancies, is an example of the majority's disrespect of democracy, which they unfortunately continue to manifest.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from West Virginia, and I regret she would not want to yield, I guess she did not want to respond to me, even though she has a lot of time left. She is going to turn back her time. But she said she was not saying we should not debate these. I will make a prediction: she and the majority will never allow a debate on concentration.

She says, oh no, we just do not want to debate it now. You do not want to debate it now, you do not want to debate it next month, you do not ever want to debate it. So the fact is this is not simply a case of, oh well, we are only on this one issue. It is the effort of the majority to suppress debate on the important question of media concentration. They will not bring it up now, and they will do everything they can to prevent it.

So, yes, I think I am on the right side of democracy when we talk about whether or not to discuss this issue. Democracy says you should discuss it.

I thank my friend and colleague from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I plan on voting for this bill because I think it is about doing the right thing for the public interest.

But I am going to vote against the rule, because we are missing an opportunity. We miss an opportunity to address the fairness issue, which is a very important one. I also think we miss an opportunity to strike a blow for family values over corporate profit.

It seems that too often when the two are in conflict, invariably this Congress lets corporate profit trump family values. What I am referring to is an amendment that I offered. It is a bill that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), myself, and others have cosponsored, that I put in the form of an amendment because it seemed relevant. What it would do is to treat ED ads on television in the same way that we treat ads for tobacco and hard liquor. They cannot be shown until after 10 o'clock. The reason for doing this is that our airwaves are saturated with these ads for erectile dysfunction drugs. I think it has gotten out of hand and I do not think it is right.

When I bring this subject up, people giggle and it is awkward to talk about it, but it is wrong in prime-time viewing hours, such as the Super Bowl when you have got tens of millions of people watching, a lot of them young kids, to be saturating the American public's mind with these pitches for ED drugs. It is just wrong. Most of it is for the purpose of competing between brands.

It is a particularly relevant issue to the Congress and to the American taxpayer because next year this administration has decided to let Medicare cover these drugs. So here we have a finite amount of Medicare that needs to be used for cancer treatment and heart disease and any number of serious illnesses, and yet we are going to take a substantial amount of this taxpayers' money and use it to give to the drug companies to help them pay for advertising.

As my colleagues know, in the Medicare prescription drug bill, we forbid the Federal Government from negotiating for lower prices of these drugs. These drug companies are paying half a billion dollars a year for advertising these drugs. And now as of next year, the American taxpayer is going to be footing a substantial amount of that bill. It is wrong. These things should not be advertised during family viewing times.

It was one thing when Bob Dole and people of a certain age, which is pretty much my age as well, were the pitchmen. But these are younger actors today. It is disingenuous to be describing this drug as medically necessary. As is the way that they warn of side effects, be careful for a 4-hour experience and so on. We know how disingenuous that is. We can giggle about it, but the fact is it is wrong. It is not appropriate when young, impressionable, teenagers and children are watching. We have some responsibility for what goes across the airwaves. They are public airwaves. This amendment should have been added to this bill for consideration today.