Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 310) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to particularly thank a number of Members. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Without his dedicated effort, we would not have this bill through the fast track that we have it today, and his support means quite a bit. I also want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle. I look at the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my ranking member on the subcommittee; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who is on the floor, the ranking member of the full committee. This is a bipartisan effort.

I would remind my colleagues that last year this legislation passed 391-22. Out of our committee this last week, it passed 46-2. That is true bipartisan spirit and we are delighted that it is up on the floor as early as it is. A little bit more than a year ago, I introduced similar legislation that had all five FCC commissioners, Republican and Democrat, on board. Each of them had lamented in a very public way that the current level of fines was way too low, and with that we moved the legislation that we introduced a couple of weeks ago. We passed it, as I said, 391-22. The Senate passed similar legislation last year, 99-1. I would note that that one that voted against it wanted the bill to be tougher. In essence, unanimous support.

Currently, fines for indecency often go uncollected because the cost for the Department of Justice to collect the fines is often greater than the fines themselves. This is no longer going to be the case under H.R. 310. The current cap for fines is $32,500. To put that into perspective, a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl just a couple of weeks ago cost $80,000 a second, $2.4 million for 30 seconds.

What we are talking about today is about the public airwaves which are, of course, owned by the U.S. taxpayer. Using the public airwaves comes with the responsibility to follow the FCC decency standards that apply to programming that airs during the family hours from 6 in the morning until 10 at night, the likeliest time that kids might be tuned in.

When broadcasters sign on the dotted line to receive their licenses, they agree to follow those decency standards, and I would note that the courts, including the highest in the land, ruled in support of that standard. There has to be a level of expectation when a parent turns on the TV or the radio between those family hours that the content will be suitable for children. A parent should not have to think twice about the content on public airwaves. Unfortunately, the situation is far from reality.

I would note very strongly that we do not change the standard in this legislation. We raise the fines. I have asked for the FCC to look for the transcripts of what they have fined. I am not going to put this in the Record under unanimous consent or any other, but I will tell any Member that is here or watching on the floor, if you want to see what the FCC has fined, I have got the transcript here and it is awful, it is vulgar, it has no place on the public airwaves, and I would defy anyone to come over and look at the reading of these transcripts and say that should not be banned. It should be. And broadcasters who violate the standard ought to be fined and it ought to be more than a slap on the wrist, and that is exactly what this legislation does.

By significantly increasing the fines for indecency, the fines will be at a level where they no longer are going to be ignored and parents across the country can rest easy. With the passage of this legislation I am confident that broadcasters will think twice and, by the way, the talent themselves as well, the disk jockeys or anybody else, will think twice about pushing that envelope because they are going to be liable as well, and ultimately our kids are going to be better off for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. At the outset, I want to thank Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, and Mr. Markey for their tremendous bipartisan cooperation on this bill. I also want to thank those Members of the House who have cosponsored the bill.

I would tell my colleagues that H.R. 310 mirrors the bill which, last year, the House passed by a vote of 391-22.

For the record, we introduced this bill last year weeks before the infamous Super Bowl halftime show featuring Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. I was motivated to introduce this bill in large part because I read the transcripts of those broadcasts which the FCC found to contain indecent content. When I read some of those transcripts, I was absolutely sickened and shocked by the filth which had passed over the public's airwaves. Today, I have with me every broadcast indecency Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture Order issued by the FCC since 2000. Each order contains a transcript of the offending content. If any Member is uncertain about the merit of what we are doing here today, I would urge them to read these transcripts. I am confident that you will be as sickened as I am.

This legislation would significantly enhance the Federal Communications Commission's broadcast decency enforcement authority. As stewards of the public's airwaves, radio and television broadcasters have an obligation to abide by the decency laws which have been on the books for decades and have been upheld in the courts. Most of our local broadcasters act responsibly, but there are still too many who continue to push the envelope of indecency during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., when children are most likely to be in the audience. I would note that some broadcasters have taken to heart the seriousness of this debate and, on their own, have adopted internal policies to better control what goes over the public's airwaves over which they have stewardship. Clear Channel's ``zero tolerance'' policy as part of its ``Responsible Broadcast Initiative'' is one such example of this good corporate citizenship.

But for those broadcasters who continue to act irresponsibly, the FCC needs adequate authority to enforce the law, and this bill would deliver that.

Currently, the maximum fine which the FCC can impose for violations of the decency laws is $32,500 per violation, which, to some broadcasters, is merely the ``cost of doing business'' and, as such, is hardly a deterrent. H.R. 310 would increase the maximum fine to $500,000 per violation.

In addition, under current law, the FCC may hold a license revocation hearing for any broadcaster who is found liable for an indecency violation. However, the FCC has never held such a license revocation hearing. H.R. 310, among other things, would require the FCC to hold a license revocation hearing for any broadcaster who has been found liable for three indecency violations; this is the so-called ``three strikes'' provision. Importantly, in order for a ``strike'' to count toward the three strikes triggering a license revocation hearing under the bill, each finding of liability must have gone through an exhaustive legal process--all the way to final judgment. This is an important element to protect broadcasters' legitimate due process rights. Also, it is important to note that this provision does not require the FCC to revoke the license of a broadcaster after the third strike, it merely requires a hearing to consider the matter with no prejudice toward the outcome of such hearing. Of course, under current law, the FCC can hold a license revocation hearing after the first strike, second strike, or third strike, so all this provision does is require, at a minimum, that such a hearing is held after the third strike.

Other provisions in the bill would:

Ensure that the FCC, when setting penalties, takes into consideration the degree of culpability of the violator, whether the violator is a company or individual, and if it is a company, the size of the company and market served.

Permit the FCC to fine an individual on the first indecency offense.

Require the FCC to complete action on indecency complaints within 180 days.

Force the FCC to take indecency violations into account during license application, renewal and modifications, and

Compel the FCC to report to Congress annually regarding the agency's broadcast decency enforcement activities.

This bill significantly strengthens the FCC's enforcement authority, but does not change the underlying broadcast indecency standard which has withstood judicial scrutiny throughout the decades. Later in this debate, I, along with my colleague Ed Markey, will be offering a bipartisan manager's amendment, which makes some non-controversial changes to the bill, in large part clarifying our intent in a number of areas. But for now, I will simply close by urging my colleagues to support the bill and the manager's amendment which will be offered to it.

Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record the statement of administration policy from the administration in support of this legislation.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 16, 2005.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 310--broadcast decency enforcement act of 2005 (rep. upton (r)

michigan and 56 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

310. This will make broadcast television and radio more

suitable for family viewing by giving the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to impose

stiffer 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the subcommittee and a cosponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just remind my friend in the well that the FCC specifically dismissed complaints against ``Saving Private Ryan,'' and with regards to the ad that was trying to be run by United Church of Christ, that was a first amendment right that the station made themselves. I do not think anyone thought that the FCC would fine them for the airing of that commercial.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the FCC said they were not going to fine them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the subcommittee, who is very active on this issue, a co-sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), again a cosponsor of the legislation, very active in pursuing its goal today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues we are not changing the standard; we are simply raising the fines on the existing standard. This is not about ``Saving Private Ryan.'' Those charges were dismissed some time ago. It has aired a number of times.

But it is about what some Members have looked at, the transcripts from broadcasts that have been fined, and I would dare to say that there is not a Member of this body who wants some of this filth to ever be said or broadcast again. That is what this legislation is intended to stop, so that when we are listening to the radio or watching TV, particularly with our kids, that they are not going to be exposed to stuff that has been on the books for decades and the courts have affirmed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this manager's amendment offered by me and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I want to again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their bipartisan cooperation on this amendment, as well as the entire legislation.

What this amendment does is it makes seven noncontroversial changes to the underlying bill.

First, the amendment clarifies that the liability standard for non- licensees is willful and intentional.

Second, the amendment clarifies that for individual non-licensees to be found liable, their indecent statements must have made knowing or having reason to know that the statements would be broadcast.

Third, the amendment requires the FCC to look at the impact of a forfeiture penalty on an individual.

I want to pay a special tribute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for her work on these three issues during the committee consideration of this bill. These three changes simply clarify our intent to ensure that performers as non-licensees are treated fairly.

During the committee consideration, there were some concerns expressed that the individual-performer liability provisions in H.R. 310 could be used to fine artists that use offensive language when their recordings are played on the radio. The phrase ``willfully and intentionally'' in this amendment is meant to include those situations where an individual intentionally utters material consciously and deliberately which he or she knows or has reason to know will be broadcast. For instance, a live interview of a player at a basketball game or Janet Jackson's performance at the Super Bowl are clear examples where the performer intentionally said or did something knowing it would be broadcast.

Alternatively, when an artist records a song in a studio, he or she perhaps has a hope that the song will be broadcast, but does not sing the lyrics with the intent to broadcast at that moment or even knowing that it will be broadcast in the future.

Similarly, if an athlete or a coach in the heat of a sporting event, such a baseball player being hit by a pitch, reflexively yells out an obscene, indecent, profane utterance caught by a field microphone, the situation would also not be captured by the willful and intentional standard, as his or her actions were not intentionally done and knowing that they would be broadcast.

In addition, the manager's amendment underscores the FCC's requirement that when setting penalties for

individual performers, it must look at the ability of that individual to pay, as required by existing law, and the FCC must take into consideration the impact of the forfeiture penalties on that individual.

Clearly, not all individuals who may run afoul of the law have the same ability to pay. A pro athlete or a blockbuster recording artist may have significantly greater worth than a struggling artist or college athlete. That is why we require the FCC to factor this in when setting such penalties, and underscore that in this amendment.

Fourth, the amendment changes the General Accounting Office to its new name of Government Accountability Office.

Fifth, the amendment requires the FCC's annual indecency enforcement report to include data going back to 2000.

Sixth, it requires the GAO's indecency enforcement report to include data going back to 2000.

Lastly, the amendment requires the FCC to update its broadcast indecency enforcement guidelines at least every 3 years.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) for her work on that issue, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his bipartisan cooperation and cosponsoring this amendment with me, and thank the Committee on Rules for making it in order. I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the staff, Kelly Cole, Will Nordwind and Howard Waltzman. They have been terrific working with staffs on both sides.

I remind my colleagues this passed overwhelmingly in not only the committee, but last year as well, and also in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

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, Americans are right to be outraged at much of the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of Americans and feature lewd, inappropriate conduct. It is totally legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs.

The First Amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' It does not make an expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the ``people's airwaves.'' Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than the people control the government in the People's Republic of China. Instead, the people's airwaves is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.

Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.

Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the first amendment.

Congress should reject H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate Federal standards, H.R. 310 expands an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power. H.R. 310 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations.

Congress should also reject H.R. 310 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is ``obscene'' or ``indecent.'' While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is ``hate speech.'' Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include hate speech. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 310 also hold views that would likely be classified as ``indecent hate speech.''

The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, ``The Passion of the Christ.'' Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show ``The Passion'' or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.

The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill's supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by ``shock jock'' Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern's radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.

The Nation's leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, has expressed opposition to a Federal crackdown on radio broadcast speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats:

If the government is going to ``censor'' what they think is

right and wrong. . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John

Kerrys . . . start running this country. And decide

conservative views are leading to violence?

I am in the free speech business. It's one thing for a

company to determine if they are going to be party to it.

It's another thing for the government to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 310 creates will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of the major media conglomerates when it does something especially outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick ``Desperate Housewives'' off the air. Most significantly, college and independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power to revoke licenses might increase media concentration.

H.R. 310 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major broadcasters' profits depend on their ability to please their audiences and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes ``risk adverse,'' that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS's quick attempt at ``damage control'' after the last year's Super Bowl. Shortly before the 2004 Super Bowl, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans to air the movie ``The Reagans,'' which outraged conservatives concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan.

Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from ``indecent'' broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people's morals; it can only reduce liberty.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no constitutional authority because the plain language of the first amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech.

Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration's foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of ``political correctness.'' Even telling a ``politically incorrect'' joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider ``unpatriotic'' and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.

These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 310 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the first amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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.