Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 193) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language.

Mr. Speaker, I again ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 193 the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. This legislation is virtually identical to H.R. 3717, as introduced by my good friend, Mr. Markey, Chairman Barton, Mr. Dingell, and myself in the last Congress on January 21, 2004, which I would note was about a week and a half before the infamous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Superbowl half-time show. That legislation was the predecessor of H.R. 310, which the House passed in this Congress on February 16, 2005 by a vote of 389-38.

While S. 193 omits a number of important provisions contained in H.R. 310, I believe that passage of this legislation will help us achieve our ultimate goal, which is to help ensure American families that broadcast television and radio programming will be free of indecency, obscenity, and profanity at times when their children are likely to

be tuning in, whether that be in the living room watching TV or in the car listening to the radio.

This is about protecting the public airwaves, and Congress has given the FCC the responsibility to help protect American families in that regard. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of our broadcast decency laws, although they have limited the FCC's enforcement to only that content which is aired between the hours of 6 in the morning and 10 at night, when children are most likely to be listening or viewing.

What compelled me to act on this, even before the infamous half-time show, was a review of the Notices of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC in but a few of its radio broadcast indecency cases. And, of course, each case had a transcript of the content that was at issue.

My friends, public decorum on this floor precludes me from reading those transcripts out loud, but what I will say is that what I read was disgusting, vile, and had no place on our public airwaves.

I was glad to see my colleagues, Mr. Markey, Mr. Barton, former Congressman Tauzin, and Mr. Dingell agreed with me as well. These cases included descriptions of people having sex in Saint Patrick's Cathedral, lewd scenes of a daughter having oral sex with her dad, and a case in which radio hosts interviewed high school girls about their sexual activities with crude reference to oral sex, with the sound effects to match, and I could go on and on and on.

More recently, on March 15, 2006, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability regarding a scene in a broadcast network program which graphically depicted teenage boys and girls in various stages of undress participating in a sexual orgy. Again, I will not describe everything that was said there, but I can say that the program aired at 9:00 P.M. in the central and mountain time zones and it drew a significant number of citizen complaints from across the country.

We have no place for that on the public airwaves. And while I am not a lawyer, I would hope it would be beyond dispute that such content is indecent under the law and does not belong on the public airwaves, particularly at times when children might be viewing or listening.

In many of those most egregious cases, the radio and TV stations are owned by huge media conglomerates, but the current statutory maximum fine which the FCC can impose upon them for indecency violations remains at $32,500. In the words of former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, he said this, ``Some of these fines are peanuts. They are peanuts because they haven't been touched in decades. They are just the cost of doing business to a lot of producers. And that has to change.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, this legislation in fact changes that. We have a chance to increase by tenfold the existing statutory maximum penalty for indecency violations. The bill would raise the cap per violation from $32,500 to $325,000.

I believe that broadcasters do have a special place in our society, given that they are stewards of the public airwaves. And with that stewardship comes the responsibility, including adherence to our Nation's indecency laws. Most broadcasters are responsible, and many recently have taken steps to redouble their commitment to keeping indecency off the public airwaves. But for those broadcasters who are less than responsible, the FCC needs to have the teeth to enforce the law, and this bill, S. 193, will give the FCC that teeth.

The bottom line is this: We do not change the standards that the courts have affirmed are permissible for the public airwaves, particularly when children might be listening. This bill simply raises the fine on the violators of the existing standards, and it needs to be passed tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman to clarify the rules. It is very important that broadcasters know precisely what the rules are. We can do a better job.

We are taking the Senate legislation as it was passed. I think we had some better language in the House. I look forward to working with you and other Members on both sides of the aisle to make this a bipartisan effort and lay those ground rules out so everyone, whether it is listeners or broadcasters, knows precisely the rules of the road and hopefully will not get into trouble for it. I thank the gentleman for his input all along in the process.

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

I would just like to make a couple of closing comments. Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his help on this from the start. It was in December 2003 I called him at his home in Massachusetts and asked if he would like to co-author this with me. With that support came the support of then-Chairman Tauzin and the gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

The four of us introduced this legislation. A week and a half before the Super Bowl, we had our first hearing, in fact, before the Super Bowl came about where it got a lot of publicity. I know all of us on the committee and subcommittee when we held hearings were absolutely disgusted with some of the trash that was said on the radio that was fined. I would like to use a different word than ``trash'' or ``stuff,'' but we would probably get fined for doing that on the House floor, and maybe our words would get taken down. I'm not sure. But it was awful, particularly knowing that kids were listening to that kind of talk.

It was a bipartisan effort. As I recall, I think we had a vote of 49- 1 to get that legislation through. I think the bipartisan spirit we have had from the beginning, and I think our House bill was a little better than what the Senate has here in S. 193, but we need to get it done. That is why I was glad to work with the Senators on both sides of the aisle. And I would note this, not a single Senator, not a single one from any State, opposed the legislation that we are going to pass with this bill, S. 193.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this when we take the vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I plan to support this legislation, as I supported the House legislation, to clear up the public's airwaves and punish those broadcasters who violate the law and the standards of the community that they are licensed to serve.

I am perhaps the only Member of the House of Representatives who is a broadcast licensee. For 20 years, my wife and I have owned and operated radio stations in Oregon. I grew up in a pioneer broadcast family. I rise tonight, however, to express concern about the FCC's recent decisions regarding indecency and profanity.

Frankly, the decisions of the Commission leave me and many of my colleagues in the broadcast world a bit confused about where the boundaries are, which has been a problem for the Commission for many years. The Commission found that certain words, which we would find very offensive, could be used in the context of airing Saving Private Ryan. However, perhaps words that would be found less offensive could not be used in an episode of NYPD Blue.

Mr. Chairman, given the tenfold increase in fines that this legislation authorizes, I think it is exceedingly important for broadcast licensees to have a clear understanding of the rules from the FCC. So I would ask you to lend your good office to encourage the FCC to achieve clarification in these areas.

I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, that Americans understand what we are doing here tonight only affects over-the-air public airwaves, radio and television broadcast licensees. If you think that the TV in your family room is suddenly going to have every program cleaned up, you are mistaken, because we are not allowed at this point to deal with issues involving cable television or satellite television or satellite radio. Indeed, when we began having hearings on this very issue of profanity in the radio broadcast spectrum, one of the individuals who probably caused the most ruckus on the public airwaves shifted over to satellite radio so that he could carry on there unfettered.

I realize these are subscription services, but I think for many Americans, when they catch cable television in their homes, they don't really differentiate any more about the four channels that may be public broadcast channels, over-the-air broadcasts, from those that are on up the dial for the next 400.

So they may wonder why it is that we can take this action tonight against licensees of the Federal Government. Now, cable services do have the ability to regulate individually within the home and block certain programs, so perhaps parents will take it upon themselves to self-regulate the home.

Meanwhile, broadcasters are going to need clarification when the fines are

going to be increased ten-fold, and not all broadcasters are parts of conglomerates. Some are mom-and-pop operators in small communities across America who rise to the challenges of serving their communities in times of natural disaster and just in terms of community events. They will need this guidance because a fine of $32,500 today on the books could bankrupt many of those small, independent broadcasters.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will work to clarify this so the broadcasters know the rules under which they need to operate and do not violate them unintentionally.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership in this area as we clean up the public air waves and also come to standards that are clearly understood by all so that inadvertent violations do not occur. And also, a recognition of small- market broadcasters versus the big major ones where even $300,000 may seem insignificant in their revenue stream.

Mr. Speaker, I am continually amazed that defending our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is such a lonely job in the House of Representatives. I believe in decency and protecting children as much as any Member, but what is at stake here is freedom of speech and whether it will be nibbled to death by election-minded politicians and self-righteous pietists.

If you don't believe that this so-called Broadcast Decency Act will have a chilling effect on free speech, let's take a look at a few examples of how the culture of censorship has spread to the airwaves over the past few years.

Numerous ABC affiliates refused to commemorate Veteran's Day by airing the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' because they feared an FCC fine. Ironically, ABC had previously aired unedited versions of the WorId War II movie in 2001 and 2002 without incident.

Many PBS stations refused to air an episode of the children's show ``Postcards with Buster'' because Buster, an 8-year-old bunny, learned how to make maple syrup from a Vermont family with two mothers.

CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl because it was critical of President Bush's role in creating the Federal deficit.

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, and the networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to air.

This is how free speech dies: with the pruning of self-satisfied politicians and the whimpering of fearful citizens. These are just a few examples that occurred before this ill-conceived bill has even been signed into law. Broadcasters will certainly increase these practices and bite their tongues when ``decency'' enforcers can slap them with a $325,000 fine, multiplied by numerous stations. How much farther down the slippery slope of censorship will we slide?

Even more galling is that this free-speech assault is coming from a mere fragment of the public, one organization--the Parents Television Council--representing the religious right and their far right-wing political agenda. This organization, which is responsible for 99.9 percent of the so-called indecency complaints filed with the FCC, boasts ``nearly 1 million members.'' True or not, while that may be a sizable number for an individual organization, when compared to the almost 300 million people currently living in the United States, it really amounts to a small handful of people--less than one percent. Why should this tiny population of scolds be allowed to censure what the remaining 99.66 percent of us listen to?

It is not for this Congress to put limits on free speech. The public decides what they want to listen to and what they want to hear. They can change the channel, they can change the station, they can turn it off. It is not just speech that we agree with and we think is right that we have to tolerate. The true test of freedom of speech is if we tolerate ugly speech, obnoxious speech, and speech that we disagree with.

We need to defend our Constitution. We need to defend freedom of speech, and that is really what is at stake here. Passing this bill is a huge mistake and this vote will mark a very dark day in American history. We are going down a slippery slope and no one can honestly say where it will stop. A vote for this bill is a frontal assault on our Constitution and the protections that it gives to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I for one will be voting against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on several votes during the weeks of June 5th and June 12th during the second session of the 109th Congress. I was not able to be in Washington to cast these votes, as I remained in my district to attend my son's high school graduation.

On rollcall vote No. 223, on agreeing to the King of Iowa amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 224, on agreeing to the Kingston amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 225, on the motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 226, on passage of H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2007, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 227, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 228, on agreeing to H. Res. 842, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 229, on passage of H.R. 5521, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 230, on motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to S. 193, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 231, on motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 5254, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 232, on passage of H.R. 5254, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 233, on motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 5449, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 234, on motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to S. 2803, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 235, on consideration of H. Res. 850, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 236, on agreeing to the Obey amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 237, on agreeing to H. Res. 850, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 238, on agreeing to the Smith of Texas amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 239, on agreeing to the Markey amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 240, on motion to Recommit with Instructions, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 241, on passage of H.R. 5252, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 242, on agreeing to the McGovern No. 7 amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 243, on agreeing to the McGovern No. 8 amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 244, on agreeing to the Weiner amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 245, on agreeing to the King of Iowa amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 246, on agreeing to the Kucinich amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 247, on agreeing to the Sanders amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 248, on agreeing to the Hefley of Colorado amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 249, on agreeing to the Blumenauer of Oregon amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 250, on passage of H.R. 5522, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 251, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 794, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 252, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 804, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 253, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 608, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 254, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 338, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 255, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 857, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the third time in 3 years to speak out against what I consider the wrong approach to media indecency, and that is increasing FCC fines.

S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, represents a weak attempt at improving our media, an uncreative policy that will harm our creative community.

Mr. Speaker, we all believe in the need to reduce indecency in media. Parents should not have to worry about what they might encounter with their children when they sit down together to watch TV. But indecency fines will not solve this problem because they do not address its root cause: media concentration and a lack of competition.

When big media gets bigger, conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of diversity, localism and competition, crucial for the service of public interest. Will monetary penalties encourage return to these principles? I sincerely doubt it.

Instead, we need a competitive media environment that provides viewers and listeners with real choices in their entertainment. We need programming that respects the public and performers rather than catering to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down our culture. A consolidated media market controlled by a profit-driven conglomerate is bound to offer cheaply made, shocking entertainment for the sake of increasing viewership and making a spectacle of itself.

Our artists need to be able to work in an environment where creativity is honored. This will never happen under a system of censorship. Creators cannot read the FCC's minds on their definition of indecency. We must work with our creative community to encourage quality media content, not simply offer vague guidelines with high consequences.

That is why I have supported making the fulfillment of public interest obligations an element of the broadcast licensees' renewal requirement and the restoration of the fairness doctrine. It is why I encourage the FCC to think about the impact that media consolidation has on media content and our national character as they begin rewriting their ownership rules, rules that upset millions of Americans and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, the indecent media culture we witness today will not be modified by simply increasing fines. It must be transformed through less media consolidation and greater requirements to serve the public interest.

I am sorely disappointed that both Houses have chosen the easy route of increasing fines rather than making a serious attempt to curb indecency by addressing the major problems in our media.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and let's try over again.