not here to pick on them necessarily, but it is the way of the world, and this bill is not going to solve it necessarily.

What is going to solve it is when the country gets together and those providing this entertainment, quote, unquote, get together and live by a standard of conduct that is decent, that avoid unnecessary indecency and all those things.

So I appreciate the hearing. Hopefully, we can make progress. Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Pits.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, for holding this important hearing and for allowing me to participate.

As you know, I am not a member of this subcommittee. However, I am gravely concerned about the language that has been permitted on network television and radio; and I agree with you that it is time that this committee take a close look at the FCC indecency standards.

I, too, was outraged when I learned that the FCC Enforcement Bureau decided that it was permissible for the "F-word" to be used on the Golden Globes awards on January 19, 2003. This decision I think sent a poor message to the entertainment industry about the FCC's willingness to enforce standards for broadcast decency. News reports indicate that FCC chairman Michael Powell is circulating a draft order among the commissioners of the FCC to reverse the Enforcement Bureau's decision. If approved by the full FCC, this would be a significant step in the right direction. If this happens, the FCC will have done the right thing; and I will be the first to say that we should give credit where credit is due.

However, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we should be satisfied with simply a reversal in the decision.

The FCC has been entrusted with enforcing our Federal decency laws and should be expected to do so. There are plenty of laws on the books regarding this matter, and the FCC just needs to enforce them. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of your bill, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Agency Enforcement Act, which increases the amount of fines that can be levied by the FCC so that networks are not tempted to air indecent language and then pay a small fine as a cost of doing business.

I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of Mr. Pickering's bill, H.Res. 500, which calls upon the FCC to vigorously enforce the Federal decency laws, using all the Federal regulatory and statutory tools at its disposal; and such include levying fines for each utterance of obscene, indecent or profane material and instituting license revocation proceedings for multiple violations.

Mr. Chairman, families are tired of having to cover their children's eyes and ears every time they turn on television. They are frustrated that the media industry has seemingly been able to broadcast any type of behavior or speech that they feel will bring in advertising dollars.

Meanwhile, they feel that the Federal Government has sided with media elites and turned a blind eye to the concerns of ordinary moms and dads. Many parents' standards of common decency are repeatedly offended and their parenting is undermined by the onslaught of material on television and radio.

I think we must protect our children from such abuse of public airwaves. Broadcast airwaves belong to the American people, not to the networks. The privilege of conducting business over the airwaves should always be conditional on their willingness to adhere to certain standards of common decency.

So thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking Member Markey for allowing me to be part of today's hearing.

I am the newest member of the committee but have not been assigned anything in the subcommittee level until this afternoon. I will attempt to be really brief and that is I think the proposed legislation is the right direction we should be taking.

The biggest concern that I have had since I arrived in Congress is that we allow things to reach a crisis stage and then we overreact legislatively and that can be a real danger, especially in this particular arena, when it could encroach on constitutional liberties and rights that have been part of the very foundation of our country.

The libertarian's dream of self-restraint and self-regulation is but a dream but one that we should aspire to. It is achievable only when you have proper governmental oversight by a regulatory agency that is willing to assume that type of responsibility with the appropriate tools.

The goal should be one standard. The goal should be that that standard is uniformly applied and that it is uniformly and fairly enforced by the regulatory agency.

I do believe that we must work in partnership with the industry, and there is a suggestion by Clear Channel that a local values task force-I am not so sure that is the best thing to call it-be formed.

In addressing another member's observation, this would include television, radio, cable, and satellite networks to make it a level playing field for everyone out there that brings in the signal into our homes that may have this kind of content.

Again, I wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member for this opportunity.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

All members have now completed their opening statements. [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

I thank the Chairman for calling this timely hearing concerning the FCC's enforcement role with regard to broadcast indecency.

After two separate incidents over the past year, both involving 4-letter expletives during television network awards shows, I am glad to see that a firestorm of pubic criticism is currently serving as the primary impetus for bringing this important issue to the table. My district particularly mirrors my comments today, to the tune of numerous letters, telephone calls, and 500 constituent emails over the last two months.

I would also like to commend my colleagues' quick legislative action. Of note, I am an original cosponsor of a measure introduced by Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Markey that would increase the penalties ten-fold that the FCC may levy for obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasts, in addition to recently cosponsoring a resolution supporting vigorous enforcement of our nation's federal obscenity laws.

Furthermore, I must recognize the FCC for their willingness to brief our panel's committee staff regarding the issue of indecency last month in addition to Chairman Powell's attention and interest in overturning a recent FCC ruling and his support for a sharp increase in penalties for violators.

As radio and television programmers continue to push the envelope, I look forward to hearing from the well-balanced panel of witnesses regarding the clarification of pertinent rules and definitions as well as potential remedies to the current situation and their impact on the First Amendment. Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back the remainder of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you for holding this hearing to examine the appropriateness of what is being broadcast over the public airwaves and whether our enforcement tools are adequate to curb and rollback the increasing instances of foul language on television and radio.

The event which, for all intents and purposes, has led to this hearing was a broadcast of the Golden Globes about this time last year where Bono B a rock singer, not to be confused with my esteemed colleague from California, Congresswoman Bono B uttered the following on live television: "This is F***ing brilliant!@ After review of this clearly inappropriate exclamation, the FCC initially declared that it did not constitute Aindecent" language. While I have heard the Commissioners are reconsidering this initial ruling, it has still called into question just what should or shouldn't be considered "indecent."

I understand the difficulties that have vexed the Commission in dealing with this, and I understand how valuable the First Amendment protections of our Constitution are B reconciling free speech matters is a very challenging prospect. Nevertheless, just as one cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, I can't imagine any instance when public broadcast of the F-word can be deemed appropriate.

Whether it is used in the context of an adjective, noun, adverb, verb B or even pronoun, its broadcast ought not be allowed. I am not certain how we achieve this, but I do know that if anyone in my house walked around expressing how "F***ing brilliant!" something was, they'd find themselves on my doormat in short order.

We have the opportunity in today's hearing to map out steps that can be taken by Congress, the FCC and broadcasters that will reverse the trend of “oneupmanship" that is leading the quality of our broadcast programming down the toilet. The Bono incident has focused a bright light on what has been a gradual slippage in the appropriateness of the content on our airwaves. If we don't address this in short order, a lot of folks may find themselves on the nation's collective doormats. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate all four witnesses being able to be here, particularly my constituent, Bill Wertz, who somehow managed, like I did, to get back from the mitten in ample time for today's hearing.

I also deeply appreciate all four of you being able to get your testimony in advance before the subcommittee. We were all able to review it last night.

Your testimony is made part of the record in its entirety, and at this point we would like you to summarize your testimony in a period not to exceed 5 minutes.

We are very happy to have Mr. David Solomon, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission; Mr. Brent Bozell, President of Parents TV Council; Mr. Robert Corn-Revere, partner of Davis Wright Tremaine; and Mr. Bill Wertz, Executive Vice President of Fairfield Broadcasting Company in Kala

mazoo.

I would note that the House is going into recess, subject to the call of the Chair, and when the last buzzer or two sounds we will begin with your 5 minutes. That should be it.

Mr. Solomon, welcome back to the subcommittee.

STATEMENTS OF DAVID SOLOMON, CHIEF, ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; L. BRENT BOZELL, III, PRESIDENT, PARENTS TELEVISION COUNCIL; ROBERT CORN-REVERE, PARTNER, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP; AND WILLIAM J. WERTZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, FAIRFIELD BROADCASTING COMPANY

Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Mr. UPTON. You might just get the mike a little closer.

Mr. SOLOMON. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Commission's enforcement of broadcast indecency restrictions.

Many of us, particularly with children, are increasingly concerned about the quality of broadcast television. Broadcasters have a unique responsibility to act in the public interest and, in particular, to air appropriate programming when children are likely to be in the audience. When broadcasters fail, the Commission stands ready to enforce its indecency rules.

Chairman Powell has been outspoken on this issue. He recently indicated, for example, that "this growing coarseness is abhorrent and irresponsible."

Under Chairman Powell's leadership, the Commission has taken indecency enforcement very seriously. To that end, we have strengthened our indecency enforcement in several respects. Most prominently, the Commission has increased the dollar amount of its enforcement substantially. During the past 3 years, the Commission has proposed indecency enforcement actions that, in the aggregate, significantly exceed the amount proposed during the prior 7 years under the prior two Commissions. In addition, the chairman has proposed a tenfold increase in the maximum indecency forfeiture permitted by the Communications Act that several of the members have discussed already.

Before I go into further detail about our indecency enforcement efforts, I will provide some brief background about the legal landscape.

Section 1464 of the Criminal Code prohibits the broadcast of indecent language. A subsequent statute and court decision established an indecency safe harbor from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Commission has authority to issue both monetary forfeitures of up to $27,500 for each indecency violation and to revoke broadcast licenses for indecency violations.

Since the 1970's, the Commission has defined indecency as follows: "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual and excretory activities or organs." The courts have affirmed this definition as consistent with the first amendment.

As previously noted, we take our indecency enforcement very seriously; and we have taken strong action in this area under Chairman Powell's leadership. Here are some highlights of how we have stepped up our indecency enforcement:

First, including actions taken yesterday, since Chairman Powell took office in mid-January 2001, the Commission has issued 18

posed indecency forfeitures, so-called notices of apparent liability,

for a total of about $1.4 million in proposed fines. This dollar amount significantly exceeds the $850,000 in indecency forfeitures proposed during the prior 7 years.

Second, starting last year, the Commission has increased the amount of its proposed forfeitures. Instead of routinely proposing indecency forfeitures at the $7,000 base amount provided in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the Commission has begun proposing in appropriate cases the statutory maximum of $27,500 per incident. Applying this stepped-up approach to the incidents, the Commission proposed an indecency enforcement action last year of over $350,000 for multiple violations. Yesterday, it proposed an indecency forfeiture of $700,000, which is the highest single forfeiture for any violation in the history of the Commission.

Third, last year the Commission provided explicit notice to broadcasters that it may begin license revocation proceedings for serious indecency violations. The Commission now reviews indecency cases that occurred after that notice with the possibility of revocation being a very serious revocation.

Fourth, last year the Commission also provided explicit notice to broadcasters that it may treat multiple indecent utterances within a single program as constituting multiple indecency violations, rather than following its traditional per-program approach. Again, with respect to cases after that announcement, the Commission is reviewing the facts with this new approach in mind.

Fifth, also beginning last year, the Commission broadened its indecency investigations to cover not just the station that is the subject of the complaint but other co-owned or affiliated stations that may broadcast the same potentially indecent material. The Commission also began collecting more extensive information from broadcasters in the course of our indecency investigations.

Sixth, the Chairman recently proposed that the Commission reverse the Enforcement Bureau's October 2003, Golden Globes award ruling. The Bureau made this decision based on precedent stating that the broadcast of a single expletive, including the F word, was not indecent. The Chairman has now proposed to reverse the Bureau. If the Commission agrees to this approach, it would represent a significant strengthening of indecency enforcement. I can assure you the Enforcement Bureau will be fully committed to enforcing the law in the manner set forth in its decision.

We believe Congress can also assist us to enforce the indecency restrictions in a strong and effective manner. In this regard, Chairman Powell has supported increasing by 10 the maximum forfeiture amounts specified in the Communications Act for indecency; and we hope Congress will enact such legislation.

We appreciate the leadership of Chairman Upton, Congressman Markey and others on this issue.

In sum, I want to assure the subcommittee that the Commission is fully committed to vigorous enforcement of the broadcast indecency restrictions in order to protect the interests of America's children. We stand ready to work with you to support this important public interest objective.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of David Solomon follows:]