[Senate Prints 111-33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress } { S. Prt.
1st Session } COMMITTEE PRINT { 111-33
_______________________________________________________________________
GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
________
FOR THE USE OF THE STAFF
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
---------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
November 9, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-260 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred eleventh congress
first session
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BARBARA BOXER, California JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
TOM UDALL, Colorado MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK WARNER, Virginia
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen Doneski, Chief of Staff
James Reid, Deputy Chief of Staff
Bruce Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Acting Republican Staff Director
Brian Hendricks, Republican Chief Counsel
Todd Bertoson, Republican Senior Counsel
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
111th Congress } {
1st Session } SENATE { 111-33
=======================================================================
GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
_______
November 9, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
_______
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..........................................................1
Essential Components of a Committee Report............................3
Purpose of Bill.......................................................4
Background and Needs..................................................6
Legislative History..................................................13
Summary of Major Provisions..........................................17
Estimated Costs......................................................20
Regulatory Impact Statement..........................................25
Congressionally Directed Spending....................................29
Section-by-Section Analysis..........................................32
Votes in Committee...................................................38
Agency Comments......................................................42
Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views.........................43
Changes in Existing Law..............................................49
Very Long or Very Short Measures.....................................54
Review and Filing of Report..........................................79
Things To Avoid......................................................82
A Few Matters of Style...............................................83
Appendix: How To Introduce a Bill....................................85
INTRODUCTION
While the Standing Rules of the Senate do not require a
standing committee to file a written report accompanying a bill
or resolution reported by the committee, it has been the
practice of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation to submit a written report whenever the
Committee files a reported bill or resolution. This practice
has applied equally to the reporting of bills and resolutions
referred to the committee and to original bills or resolutions
reported by the committee.
Paragraph 4(a) of rule XVII of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that any report filed by a committee lie over 1
day for consideration. The 1-day layover rule can be waived by
unanimous consent. Paragraph 5 provides that any bill or
resolution reported by a standing committee may not be
considered in the Senate unless the reported bill or resolution
has been available to Senators for at least 2 calendar days
(excluding Sundays and legal holidays) before it is considered.
The 2-day availability rule can be waived by mutual agreement
of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or, presumably,
by unanimous consent.
A committee report does not have the force of law, but it
is useful as a way of providing guidance to an administering
officer, agency, or other interested party with respect to the
manner in which a law, or a change in existing law, is to be
implemented or enforced. In addition, the courts frequently
refer to committee reports, as an important component of the
legislative history of a statute, in interpreting provisions of
law that may be ambiguous or the application of which to a
particular set of circumstances is not clear on the face of the
statute.
This guide has been written to assist the staff in the
preparation of committee reports that contain the elements
required by the Standing Rules of the Senate and that are
consistent in format and style. It is intended also to provide
guidance with respect to circumstances in which deviation from
the standard format, or the inclusion of optional components,
may be appropriate.
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A COMMITTEE REPORT
Except as noted in the detailed discussion of each
component listed below, each committee report should include
the following components in the following order:
Purpose of the Bill
Background and Needs
Summary of Provisions
Legislative History
Estimated Costs
Regulatory Impact Statement
Congressionally Directed Spending
Section-by-Section Analysis
Rollcall Votes in Committee
Additional, Supplemental, or Minority Views
Changes in Existing Law
Note: The parts of the report that precede the purpose-of-
the-bill component are prepared by the Committee's Legislative
Counsel. This includes the front page, the member and staff
roster on the next page, and the head and introductory
paragraph \1\ that precedes the purpose of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill joint resolution deg. (S.
H.R. deg. ------) TITLE deg. to . . ., having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon [without amendment or
with amendments or with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute)]
and recommends that the bill joint resolution deg. [(as
amended)] do pass. The matter in black brackets should reflect the
Committee's action on the measure.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This section of the report is intended to inform the
reader, as quickly and simply as possible, of the main thrust
of the reported bill. This can usually be accomplished in a
single sentence for a simple measure and no more than 3 to 5
sentences for a lengthy or complex measure.
The most common mistake in writing this section is to make
it too long. Bear in mind that this section contains the first
few sentences of the report, and the objective is to give the
reader a quick overview of the subject matter of the bill. Save
any detailed descriptions of the legislation, as well as
arguments as to the need for the legislation, for later
sections of the report.
EXAMPLES
The purpose of the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S.
165, as reported, is to enhance the security of cargo
transported by air, particularly aboard passenger aircraft.
* * * * * * *
The purpose of S. 886, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Corps Confirmation Correction
Legislation, is to ratify the otherwise legal appointments and
promotions in the commissioned corps of NOAA that failed to be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent as required
by law.
* * * * * * *
The purpose of this legislation, as reported, is to
reauthorize the United States Fire Administration (USFA) for
fiscal years (FYs) 2004 through FY 2008, and re-establish the
position of Administrator of the USFA. The legislation also
would establish and authorize funding for programs under the
USFA to support the development of voluntary consensus
standards for new firefighting technology, improve coordination
between Federal, State, and local fire officials, and authorize
the National Fire Academy to train firefighters to respond to
acts of terrorism.
* * * * * * *
S. 1234 would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA)
(15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) to carry out the functions, powers, and
duties of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission). The
bill would authorize funding levels to be appropriated for
fiscal years 2004 through 2007, as well as authorize the FTC to
accept both reimbursement from other agencies that may seek the
Commission's assistance, and gifts that do not create a
conflict of interest. The bill also would improve the
Commission's ability to provide more timely and effective
international consumer protection.
* * * * * * *
The purpose of this legislation is to amend section 332(c)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) by adding
a new paragraph (9) to: (1) require providers of wireless
directory assistance services to obtain the express prior
authorization of a subscriber before listing his or her
wireless telephone number in a directory assistance database;
(2) require such providers to remove the wireless telephone
number of any subscriber from any directory assistance database
upon request and without any charge to the subscriber; (3)
require telecommunications carriers to avoid disclosing on
their customer bills any wireless telephone numbers of
consumers who have indicated such a preference to their
wireless carriers; (4) prohibit the publishing (in printed,
electronic, or other form), sale, or other dissemination of a
wireless telephone number without consent; and (5) prohibit
wireless directory assistance providers from charging consumers
for exercising any of their rights provided under this
legislation.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
This section of the report should set forth a concise
summary of why the legislation is necessary or desirable. It
often contains a brief description of an existing problem, the
inadequacies of current programs or law in dealing with the
problem, and the need to address the problem through new
legislation by modifying the current law applicable to the
circumstances that create the problem. Except for a lengthy,
complex, or controversial bill, a few short paragraphs may
suffice.
An effort should be made here, also, to keep the written
matter as concise and to-the-point as possible, consistent with
providing an overview of what problem the bill is intended to
address and how it proposes to address that problem.
EXAMPLES
The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the seven uniformed
services of the United States (the others are the four
Department of Defense services, the Coast Guard, and the Public
Health Service). The NOAA Corps is comprised of slightly over
250 commissioned officers and operates a wide variety of
specialized aircraft and ships used to conduct NOAA's
environmental and scientific missions. Its commissioned
officers provide NOAA with an important blend of operational,
management, and technical skills that support the agency's
science and surveying programs at sea, in the air, and ashore.
Corps officers operate and manage NOAA's ships and aircraft as
well as serve in the agency's research laboratories and program
offices throughout the nation and in remote locations around
the world.
The NOAA Corps officer appointments and promotions are
similar to the other uniformed services and, under section 226
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 3026) and its
antecedent, require nomination by the President and must be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.
Historically, the Commerce Committee has considered NOAA
promotions, along with routine Coast Guard officer promotions,
during Full Committee Executive Sessions.
It recently came to the Committee's attention that NOAA has
failed since October 1, 1999, to submit any of its NOAA Corps
officer appointments and promotions to the President for
nomination and subsequently to the Senate for its advice and
consent. Since then, the NOAA Corps has made approximately 251
appointments and promotions, involving approximately 196
officers. An ongoing Department of Commerce investigation
indicates these procedural problems may have existed prior to
October 1, 1999, and additional officers' appointments and
promotions may also be affected. These revelations raise
serious questions concerning the validity of these appointments
and promotions that could affect each individual officer's pay,
entitlements, job status, and the ability to carry out the
officer's official actions.
To address this serious situation, the legislation is
designed to provide a framework for retroactive appointments
and promotions for the affected officers in a manner that will
protect the professional and financial aspects of their
positions, and that will ensure that all past actions taken in
the line of duty by such officers after their appointments and/
or promotions are considered to have been official actions. The
bill states that all actions performed in the line of duty by
these NOAA corps officers are ratified and approved. In
addition, the legislation states that all Federal agency
actions (with respect to pay, benefits, and retirement) in
relation to an unconfirmed NOAA corps officer shall be
considered legally binding.
The bill provides that the President, acting alone, can
make appointments and promotions for up to 180 days to allow
these officers to maintain their status until the full Senate
gives its advice and consent for these appointments and
promotions going forward. Once this bill is enacted into law,
the Administration is expected to submit the list of these
officers to the Senate for its advice and consent.
* * * * * * *
Today, there are approximately 140 million wireless
telephones in use in the United States. Several studies over
the last decade have shown that most consumers cite safety and
security (including the ability to communicate in an emergency)
as their main reason for purchasing a cell phone. Even if their
own lives are not affected, many Americans have indicated they
are willing to be ``Good Samaritans'' and use their wireless
phones to report emergencies to local public safety authorities
when they see them occurring. Of the approximately 200 million
calls placed to 911 each year, more than 56 million, or 28
percent, of the calls are made from wireless phones. Some
metropolitan areas show even higher percentages of wireless 911
calls than the nationwide average, with several receiving a
majority of their 911 calls from wireless phones.
Unlike calls to 911 from land-based wireline telephones,
most public safety operators answering wireless 911 calls do
not have information regarding the name, telephone number, and
location of the caller -- referred to as enhanced 911 (E-911)
services. Without this information, emergency response times
may be delayed while the operators attempt to determine the
location of the emergency. In many instances, wireless 911
callers do not know their exact location (particularly in rural
areas), and some who are injured or disoriented cannot respond
to operators' questions regarding their location. Medical
emergency and public safety responders speak of a ``golden
hour'' -- the first hour after serious injury when there is the
greatest chance of saving life. As time elapses, chances of
survival diminish and the severity of injuries increase. Prompt
and accurate location information -- especially from the
increasing numbers of wireless 911 calls -- is therefore
critical to delivering emergency assistance to victims within
the first hour.
IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
Successful wireless E-911 implementation requires the
cooperation of three discrete groups: wireless carriers,
wireline telephone companies (also known as local exchange
carriers), and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). A PSAP
is the emergency operator dispatch point that receives 911
calls for a community. There are approximately 6,100 PSAPs
nationwide. In short, the wireless carrier must be able to
determine the location of the caller, the local exchange
carrier must carry that location information from the carrier
to the PSAP, and the PSAP must be capable of receiving such
information. In many ways, the initiation of wireless E-911
implementation begins with the PSAP, because no other
obligations are imposed on any other party until the PSAP
submits a request for E-911 service.
It is estimated that only 10 percent of the PSAPs
nationwide have made requests to receive wireless E-911
location information (known as ``Phase II'' requests). One
major reason for the delay in PSAP requests is that PSAPs are
not ready to receive the E-911 information that will be sent to
them by wireless carriers. In order to receive this
information, PSAPs must first make software and hardware
upgrades in their operations centers, as well as make
appropriate trunking arrangements with local wireline telephone
companies to enable wireless E-911 data to pass from the
wireless carrier to the PSAP. As required by the FCC, however,
PSAPs also must have the means of covering their costs in order
to make a valid request to the wireless carrier for E-911
service. Absent a valid PSAP request, a wireless carrier is
under no obligation to deploy E-911 services.
STATE FUNDING PROBLEMS
The FCC's rules do not mandate any specific State action
nor specify any particular mechanism for funding the technology
and service capabilities necessary to enable the PSAP to make a
valid service request. Some PSAPs are able to fund upgrades
from existing State budgets, but most PSAPs must rely on funds
collected pursuant to State authority for public safety
services. Currently, over 40 States have established some type
of wireless fee or surcharge on consumers' mobile phone bills
to fund, either in whole or in part, PSAP upgrades for wireless
E-911 service. In the States relying on monthly surcharges,
subscribers' fees range from 20 cents to $2 per month, with the
average about 60 cents per month. \1\ In many States, however,
State laws do not specifically limit the use of wireless E-911
surcharges to wireless E-911 upgrades. These States' surcharges
can be used for other public safety purposes if not spent on
wireless E-911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NENA Fact Sheet: Enhanced Wireless Emergency Communications:
Implementation Process and Status, National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), October 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, State lawmakers and administrators have begun
investigating the use of E-911 funds, and have discovered
instances in which E-911 funds have been used for purposes
other than the provision of E-911 service. Observers claim as
many as 11 States have been ``raiding'' their collected E-911
funds to satisfy other State obligations. In New York, for
example, nearly $200 million collected as E-911 surcharges have
been diverted for other public safety purposes, while the
State's PSAPs have remained underfunded and unready to request
E-911 service from carriers. Although State administrators
supporting these diversions argue that their decisions are
justified given more pressing State funding needs,
investigators also have found some egregious examples of such
funds being used to cover expenses for dry cleaning and lawn
mowing services for State police (e.g., New York).
* * * * * * *
Congress formed the United States Olympic Association
(USOA) in 1950 under the ``Act to Incorporate the United States
Olympic Association.'' In 1964, the USOA was modified and
became the USOC. Additional modifications to the USOC resulted
from a study conducted by President Gerald Ford's Commission on
Olympic Sports (Ford Commission). From 1975 to 1977, the Ford
Commission evaluated each Olympic sport and determined how to
correct factional disputes between the sports. Senator Stevens,
who served on the Ford Commission, sponsored what later became
known as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which
was enacted in 1978 (the Act). The Act named the USOC as the
central coordinating organization for athletes and sports of
the Olympic and Pan-American Games.
In its current form, the USOC performs a variety of
functions. It provides financial, educational, training, and
medical support for Olympic athletes. The USOC receives no
permanent funding from the government. Though the 1978 charter
granted the USOC several million dollars in seed money, the
funds were never appropriated. \1\ Thus, the USOC supports its
activities primarily through corporate sponsorship and
licensing agreements for the rights to broadcast Olympic
events. The USOC's current annual revenue is approximately $125
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1981, the USOC did receive a one-time appropriation from
Congress of $10 million to compensate the USOC for lost revenue caused
by the United States' boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USOC is often criticized for being an unwieldy
bureaucracy with a board of directors comprised of 124 members,
and for being the subject of too many scandals. Some examples
of scandals include, in 1980, 25 athletes sued the USOC for
boycotting the 1980 Games, claiming that the USOC had violated
their constitutional rights. In the early 1990s, the Committee
was accused of buying out two USOC officials in order to hire a
new USOC executive director. In 1991, the resignation of then-
USOC President Robert Helmick forced the USOC's special counsel
to admit certain ethical problems with Helmick's leadership.
And, in an effort to secure the selection to host the 2002
Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, local organizing
committee members were accused of taking bribes.
Earlier this year, the USOC was again the subject of public
embarrassment when then-USOC CEO Lloyd Ward became the subject
of a USOC Ethics Committee investigation for a possible
conflict-of-interest violation. The investigation was rumored
to be the result of tension between Mr. Ward and the former
USOC president, Marty Mankamyer. The Ethics Committee
determined that Mr. Ward (a former CEO of Maytag) had committed
two ``technical violations'' of the USOC's ethics code, and
indicated to the Executive Committee that the problems could
have been remedied through timely ethical compliance
counseling. In the end, it was the Executive Committee that
decided that the only punitive action to be taken against Mr.
Ward would be the reduction of Mr. Ward's annual bonus by
several hundred thousand dollars. In an act of protest of the
Ethics Committee's decision, Executive Committee member Brian
Derwin, Chief Ethics Compliance Officer, Patrick Rodgers, and
three members of the 10-person Ethics Committee resigned their
volunteer posts. Less than one month later, Ms. Mankamyer
succumbed to intense USOC pressure to resign. The same pressure
forced Lloyd Ward to resign on March 1, 2003.
* * * * * * *
On November 16, 2001, Congress passed the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in response to the terrorist
attacks on September 11th of that year. The Act, which was
signed into law on November 19, 2001, implemented a new regime
for aviation security and created the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to oversee security for all modes of transportation. The
TSA has since been transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). ATSA (P.L. 107-71) contained numerous
provisions and deadlines designed to increase aviation security
targeted at the safety and security of airline passengers.
With respect to the security of air cargo, ATSA contained
two key provisions. The first dealt with passenger aircraft and
required that the TSA provide for the screening of all cargo
and mail that will be carried aboard such aircraft (section
110). Almost all passenger flights carry cargo alongside
luggage in the belly of the plane. Such cargo can encompass
anything from pallets of computer chips to refrigerated cartons
of chicken. According to a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) estimate, approximately 22 percent of all air cargo
loaded in the United States in 2000 was carried on passenger
flights.
ATSA required that all checked airline bags be screened by
explosive detection systems by December 31, 2002, which was
later extended to 2003 for a limited number of airports. A
similar timetable was not specified for screening cargo.
The second provision required that a system must be in
operation as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
ATSA (section 10), to screen, inspect, or otherwise ensure the
security of all cargo that is to be transported in all-cargo
aircraft .
I. ACTIVITY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
The air cargo system involves numerous participants that
all require some level of security oversight. Typically, a
shipper takes packages to an indirect air carrier (IAC, also
known as a freight forwarder). An IAC is defined as any person
or entity, excluding an air carrier, that engages indirectly in
the transportation of property by air, and uses the services of
a passenger air carrier. This does not include the United
States Postal Service. The IAC may consolidate packages from
many shippers into single containers. The IAC then uses trucks,
either its own or hired, to deliver the bulk freight to air
carriers for transport.
Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FAA was
generally responsible for oversight of civil aviation security.
The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 led to the passage of
the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, which required
the FAA to begin an accelerated 18-month research and
development effort to find an effective explosives detection
system to screen baggage and cargo. Following the 1996 crashes
of ValuJet flight 592 and TWA flight 800, the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security was created to
assess vulnerabilities of safety and security confronting
aviation. The Commission recommended that the FAA implement a
comprehensive plan to address the threat of explosives and
other threatening objects in cargo and to work with industry to
develop new initiatives in this endeavor. The FAA subsequently
created Federal and industry partnerships, the Baseline Working
Group, and later, the Cargo Working Group, to find ways improve
air cargo security.
Under the FAA's program, front-line responsibility for
screening air cargo fell on two groups: the carriers and IACs.
Both were required to adopt and carry out FAA-approved security
programs.
The key element of FAA's cargo security program before
September 11, 2001, was the Known Shipper Program. A known
shipper is essentially one that has an established reputation
and thus is ``known'' to the industry and to the FAA. This
program allowed an air carrier or IAC to transport a package
from a known shipper with no more screening than an examination
of its exterior. Packages from unknown shippers would be
screened by X-ray or physically inspected before being placed
aboard a passenger aircraft. Under the FAA's cargo security
program, IACs were not allowed to accept packages from unknown
shippers. If the IAC does not have an existing relationship
with the business that seeks to ship goods, it must follow
established regulations to ensure the company is a trustworthy
business. The FAA's security oversight and implementation
responsibility of the Known Shipper Program was transferred
through ATSA to the TSA.
Before September 11, 2001, the DOT Inspector General (IG)
had been conducting tests of cargo security. The IG found that
air carriers and indirect air carriers were not always
complying with the FAA's Known Shipper Program, and that the
FAA had not developed and implemented an adequate policy or
oversight system to ensure compliance.
II. ACTIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
A number of important changes were implemented after
September 11, 2001, regarding the shipment of cargo on
passenger air carriers. These changes included the requirement
that only cargo from known shippers could be accepted on
passenger air carriers and all cargo from unknown shippers and
mail weighing more than 16 ounces had to be diverted to all-
cargo air carriers.
The Known Shipper Program continues to be TSA's primary
means of compliance with ATSA screening mandates today.
According to the agency, it has strengthened the process
through which a shipper becomes ``known''. The TSA has
developed a national database of known shippers and is re-
validating every business in the known shipper program.
Many of the other changes implemented by TSA are sensitive
or classified information.
III. AIR CARGO ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The IG has expressed some concerns that the TSA's cargo
security program is continuing to rely on the Known Shipper
Program, which has weaknesses, and that very little cargo is
actually screened. The IG believes that TSA must reevaluate its
program to determine whether current procedures should be
retained, identify new principles and controls that should be
added, and develop a strategic plan to screen all cargo. The IG
also is recommending that, until screening of all cargo is
feasible, TSA develop and implement a plan for random screening
of cargo using x-ray, canines, or explosives detection
equipment. In addition, the IG advocates a requirement that a
provider of cargo transportation lose its certification when
TSA inspections and testing have continuously found the
provider in noncompliance with cargo security requirements.
The size and nature of air cargo can vary widely. Airlines
are financially dependent on cargo, which carries higher profit
margins than passenger traffic. One of the key problems with
any attempt to screen all cargo on passenger aircraft at this
time is that any type of physical inspection or electronic
screening would be extremely expensive and time-consuming. Some
industry observers believe that any changes causing additional
expense or delay to the air cargo system could cause widespread
disruption to United States businesses, which have grown
dependent on moving goods rapidly, as well as creating further
financial difficulties for the troubled United States airline
industry.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
This section of the report should set forth a concise
legislative history of the bill as reported. That history would
typically include the sponsor, an up-to-date list of cosponsors
(some of whom may have been added after the introduced bill was
printed), the date of introduction, any hearings on the bill
held by the committee, and the executive session at which it
was considered by the committee. It may also contain a
statement with respect to companion bills introduced in the
House of Representatives and a discussion of similar bills,
including a description of any action taken with respect to
such other bills.
Note that any rollcall votes during the executive section
at which the bill was considered by the committee are reported
in a separate section of the report.
An excessively long and detailed legislative history
interrupts the continuity of a committee report, so this
information should be provided in 1 or 2 brief paragraphs if
possible. It is not necessary to list witnesses or excerpt
their testimony in this section, as that information is
available in the hearing record. Since the focus of the report
should be on the measure being reported during the current
session, one generally should avoid recounting the legislative
history of similar measures considered in previous Congresses.
This does not preclude discussion of other measures and action
by previous sessions, however, where that discussion is an
important part of the legislative history of the current
measure.
EXAMPLES
S. 1260 was introduced on June 13, 2003, by Senator
McCain and Senator Brownback and was referred to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. A hearing on the FAA
Reauthorization was held on April 10, 2003. On June 19, 2003,
the Committee met in open executive session and, by a voice
vote, ordered S. 1260 reported without amendment.
* * * * * * *
Senator Burns, the chairman of the Communications
Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, introduced S. 1250 on June 12, 2003, with
Senator Clinton as an original cosponsor. The bill is also
cosponsored by Senator Lautenberg.
On March 5, 2003, the Communications Subcommittee held a
hearing on the implementation of E-911 services for wireless
phones. Three members of Congress appeared before the
Committee, in addition to a State assemblyman, and a diverse
group of companies, associations, and private parties
interested in E-911 services.
On June 26, 2003, the Committee met in open executive
session and by voice vote ordered the bill reported without
amendment.
* * * * * * *
On April 8, 2003, Senator McCain introduced S.824, a bill
to reauthorize the FAA and its programs, as well as streamline
airport capacity projects and improve aviation security. The
bill was originally co-sponsored by Senators Hollings, Lott,
and Rockefeller. Sections of the bill regarding the
streamlining of airport capacity projects largely arose from
provisions provided in S. 633, the Aviation Delay Prevention
Act, which was reported favorably out of the Commerce Committee
in the 107th Congress. A substantial portion of the FAA's
research and development sections were essentially identical to
S. 2951, the Federal Aviation Administration Research,
Engineering, and Development Act of 2002, which also was
reported favorably out of the Commerce Committee and passed by
the Senate during the 107th Congress.
On April 10, 2003, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on
S. 824.
On May 1, 2003, the Committee ordered S. 824 to be reported
favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
* * * * * * *
Senators Brownback (for himself, Mr. Allen, and Mr. L.
Graham) introduced S. 2056 on February 9, 2004. The Committee
held a hearing on indecent and violent programming and its
effect on children on February 11, 2004, where all five FCC
Commissioners testified.
On March 9, 2004, the Committee held an executive session
at which S. 2056 was considered. The bill was approved
unanimously by voice vote and was ordered reported with
amendments. The Committee first approved a perfecting amendment
by Senators McCain and Brownback that would impose a per-
utterance penalty; require the FCC to consider a number of
factors when assessing a fine; create a cap on the total amount
a broadcast licensee may be fined during a 24-hour period;
establish deadlines for the FCC to act on indecency complaints;
and compel the FCC to report to Congress annually about its
indecency enforcement activities. The perfecting amendment was
modified by a second-degree amendment by Senator Stevens that
would create an escalating fine structure; double the cap on
fines if the FCC finds certain aggravating factors present; and
require the FCC to commence a license revocation proceeding
against any licensee that has paid, or been ordered by a court
to pay, fines arising from three indecency violations during
its license term. Additionally, the Committee approved an
amendment offered by Senator Stevens that would eliminate any
restrictions on broadcasters or associations representing
broadcasters from instituting a voluntary industry code of
conduct governing a family viewing policy. The Committee also
approved an amendment by Senators Stevens and Allen that would
``streamline'' the process for imposing financial penalties
against non-licensees who violate 18 U.S.C. 1464, and increase
the cap on fines against non-licensee violators. An amendment
by Senators Dorgan, Lott, Snowe, and Cantwell was approved that
would require the relationship between media consolidation and
indecent broadcasts to be studied by the General Accounting
Office (GAO) and would suspend the FCC's June 2, 2003, media
ownership rules while the GAO conducts its study.
The Committee also approved an amendment by Senators
Hollings and Stevens that would require the FCC to study the
effectiveness of the V-Chip and prohibit the distribution of
violent video programming during the hours when children are
reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the
audience, if the V-chip is determined to be ineffective.
The amendment is substantially similar to legislation
previously reported favorably by the Committee. In October,
1993, the Committee held a hearing on television violence to
consider a variety of legislative proposals. Attorney General
Janet Reno testified that the legislation pending before the
Committee, including S. 1383, the Hollings-Inouye legislation
establishing a safe harbor for violent programming, would be
constitutional.
On July 11, 1995, the Committee held its second hearing on
television violence to consider pending measures, including S.
470, the Hollings safe harbor legislation. S. 470 (104th
Congress) is identical to S. 1383 (103rd Congress). The
Committee subsequently reported S. 470, as introduced, on
August 10, 1995, by a recorded vote of 16 to 1, with two
Senators not voting. No further action was taken during the
104th Congress.
On February 26, 1997, Senator Hollings with Senators Inouye
and Dorgan as co-sponsors, introduced S. 363. S. 363 was
similar to S. 470 but allowed the Commission to implement a
safe harbor if it did not implement a content-based ratings
system. On February 27, 1997, the Committee held another
hearing on television violence in which S. 363 was addressed.
Groups such as the APA expressed their disapproval of the
current age based rating system proposed by the industry and
noted their preference for a content-based ratings system.
Kevin Saunders, Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma,
testified that violent programming could arguably be considered
obscene or indecent and the safe harbor approach is
constitutional. \46\ On May 1, 1997, the Committee reported S.
363 with one amendment to add findings by a recorded vote of 19
to 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Testimony of Kevin Saunders, J.D., Ph.D. before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, February 27, 1997.
p. 17 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 1999, Senator Hollings introduced S. 876, safe
harbor legislation that was substantially similar to S. 470 and
S. 1383. The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Byrd, Durbin,
and Inouye. On May 13, 1999, the Committee held its third
hearing on television violence and safe harbor legislation.
Senator Hollings' bill, S. 876 was discussed at length, and
testimony was offered as to the constitutionality of the
measure as well as the adverse harm to children affected by
exposure to violence on television. On September 20, 2000, the
Committee reported S. 876, as amended, by a recorded vote of 17
to 1, with one Senator voting present.
On April 10, 2003, the Committee held its fourth hearing on
the impact of violent material on children. Specifically, the
witnesses testified on neurobiological research in the field of
brain mapping and conclusions reached on the impact of media
violence on children. On February 1, 2004, the Committee held
its fifth hearing on television violence. Senator Hollings's
safe harbor legislation, S. 161, which was incorporated with
minor changes as an amendment into S. 2056, was discussed by
the five FCC Commissioners.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS
This section should be used to set forth the major
provisions of the bill in a summary fashion, with special
emphasis on any change in policy contained in the reported
bill. Special care should be taken to ensure that the summary
accurately reflects the bill as reported. This section may be
omitted in a report on a short bill, particularly if it would
do nothing more than repeat the material in the ``Purpose of
the Bill'' section.
Bear in mind that this section is a summary of the major
provisions of the bill. It should neither paraphrase the bill
nor duplicate the section-by-section analysis that appears in a
subsequent section of the report.
This section should omit minor, technical, and conforming
provisions of the reported bill.
EXAMPLES
S. 165 would provide for several steps to improve the
security of air cargo, particularly that which is carried
aboard passenger aircraft. The TSA would be required to develop
a strategic plan to ensure that all air cargo is screened,
inspected, or otherwise made secure. TSA also would be required
to develop a system for the regular inspection of air cargo
shipping facilities. A database of known shippers would be
established in order to bolster the Known Shipper Program.
Indirect air carriers could have their certificates revoked if
TSA finds that they are not adhering to security laws or
regulations. The existing Federal security program for indirect
air carriers would be reviewed and assessed for possible
improvements. TSA would develop a security training program for
persons who handle air cargo. All-cargo carriers would be
required to develop security plans that would be subject to
approval by the TSA.
S. 165 also would alter a provision in ATSA to expand the
requirements of background checks for alien flight school
applicants to include all aircraft instead of aircraft weighing
12,500 pounds or more.
S. 165 also would require a number of studies to be
undertaken by the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Homeland Security.
* * * * * * *
S. 1404 would amend the Act to--
(1) reduce the size of the existing USOC board of
directors from 124 members to nine elected members,
five of whom would be independent, two representatives
of the Athletes Advisory Council (AAC), and two
representatives of the National Governing Bodies
Council (NGBC) (in addition, the speaker of a newly-
formed assembly and the U.S. members of the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) would serve on
the board as ex officio members);
(2) designate the board as the principal governing
body of the USOC;
(3) require that the board appoint a chief executive
officer to carry out the policies and priorities of the
USOC;
(4) require that the board establish four standing
committees of the board (audit, compensation, ethics,
and nominating and governance);
(5) create an assembly consisting of the many USOC
stakeholders as provided in section 220504 of the Act,
including a maximum of three individuals who
represented the United States at the Olympics not
within the preceding 10 years;
(6) require that the assembly have authority as
provided by the board to determine matters pertaining
to the Olympic Games;
(7) require that the assembly elect a speaker;
(8) require the board to establish whistleblower
procedures for the treatment of complaints received by
the USOC, as well as procedures to protect employees
from retaliation for submitting a complaint;
(9) modify the existing ombudsman function;
(10) increase the operational and financial
transparency of the USOC by requiring the USOC to
report Congress and the President on a biennial basis;
(11) provide basic ethics and compliance guidance to
the USOC ethics committee; and
(12) allow the National Senior Games Association of
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to use the words ``Senior
Olympics'' to promote national athletic competition
among senior citizens.
* * * * * * *
The CAN-SPAM Act, S. 877, aims to address the problem of
spam by creating a Federal statutory regime that would give
consumers the right to demand that a spammer cease sending them
messages, while creating civil and criminal sanctions for the
sending of spam meant to deceive recipients as to its source or
content. Under the legislation, enforcement would be undertaken
by the FTC and, in some cases, industry-specific regulatory
authorities. In addition, the bill would enable State attorneys
general and ISPs to bring actions against violators.
If enacted, S. 877 would require senders of all commercial
e-mail to include a valid return e-mail address and other
header information with the message that accurately identifies
the sender and Internet location from which the message has
been sent. Except for transactional or relationship e-mail
messages (as defined therein), the legislation would also
require senders of commercial e-mail to provide an Internet-
based system for consumers to opt out of receiving further
messages from that sender. Moreover, a sender of UCE would be
required additionally to include in the e-mail message itself a
valid physical address of the sender as well as clear and
conspicuous notice that both the message is an advertisement or
solicitation and that the recipient may opt out of further UCE
from the sender.
S. 877 would also require businesses to ensure that they
are not promoted in e-mail sent with false or misleading
transmission information. The bill would hold the promoted
businesses responsible if they: (1) know or should know about
such deceptive promotion; (2) are receiving or expect to
receive an economic benefit from it; and (3) are taking no
reasonable precautions to prevent such promotion or to detect
and report it to the FTC.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires reports for each bill or joint resolution
reported by a committee to include an estimate of the cost of
carrying out the reported measure for the 5 fiscal years
following the fiscal year in which it is reported. This rule
applies to each reported bill or joint resolution, without
regard to whether it specifically authorizes or requires the
expenditure of funds.
Cost estimates are prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) and are transmitted with a cover letter addressed
to the chairman and the ranking member. They also appear on the
CBO website where they can be accessed online and printed for
inclusion, as a hard copy attachment, in the report.
Because of the number of legislative measures on which the
CBO may be working at any given time, the need for specialized
analysis of the impact of legislation, and the complexity of
the estimating process, it may be several days or even weeks
before the estimate can be released. Under no circumstances
should staff hold off on preparing a committee report until the
cost estimate is received from CBO.
To facilitate the cost estimate process:
Identify the CBO analyst responsible for
making the original estimate as early as practicable.
This can be done by calling CBO or by reviewing a
recent committee report dealing with the same or a
similar subject matter.
Through the Committee's Legislative Counsel,
make sure that the appropriate CBO analyst has a copy
of the draft reported bill text as soon as possible
after the mark-up, and that the analyst is promptly
apprised of any subsequent revisions to that text.
Promptly provide the CBO analyst any
additional information requested, as well as any
additional information that may be important in
estimating the cost of implementing the measure.
Alert the CBO analyst to the anticipated
filing date for the report. This is particularly
important if the bill and report are to be filed within
days after the mark-up.
The cost estimate is an important element of the report and
may become a critical factor in the consideration of a reported
bill, affecting the decision of the Budget Committee to clear a
bill for floor consideration or subjecting the bill to a point
of order.
In extraordinary circumstances, such as the last week
before adjournment, it may be necessary for the committee to
waive this requirement.
The waiver language is as follows:
In compliance with subsection (a)(3) of paragraph 11
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the
Committee states that, in its opinion, it is necessary
to dispense with the requirements of paragraphs (1) and
(2) of that subsection in order to expedite the
business of the Senate.
EXAMPLES
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 7, 1992.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the attached cost estimate for S. 2788, the National
Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992.
Enactment of S. 2788 would affect direct spending and
receipts and thus would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures
under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
(For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).
CONGESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE--COST ESTIMATE
1. Bill number: S. 2788.
2. Bill title: National Marine Sanctuaries Program
Amendments Act of 1992.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 16, 1992.
4. Bill purpose: S. 2788 would amend the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to expand the purposes
and policies of the act, clarify the definition of ``marine
environment,'' and add new requirements regarding sanctuary
designation and implementation, international cooperation,
prohibited activities, enforcement, and damage payments. In
addition, the bill would authorize appropriations for the
marine sanctuary program for fiscal years 1993 through 1995,
establish advisory councils to advise the Secretary of Commerce
regarding the designation and management of marine sanctuaries,
and designate the Provasoli-Guillard Center for the Culture of
Marine Phytoplankton as a national center and facility. The
bill also would establish a Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
Sanctuary and would authorize funds to carry out the
designation of the new sanctuary.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government:
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations:
Authorization level.................................. 11 13 15 0 0
Estimated outlays.................................... 6 11 13 6 2
Estimated revenues....................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Direct spending:
Estimated budget authority........................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Estimated outlays.................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that all funds authorized
would be appropriated and that spending would occur at
historical rates. In addition, CBO expects that funding for the
advisory councils established in the bill would come from the
authorized funds.
Under current law, NOAA has the authority to collect civil
penalties for violations of regulations protecting marine
sanctuaries from environmental damage. Penalties owed under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
receive no preference over amounts owed to other creditors in
the case of an individual who cannot meet debt obligations.
Section 9 of the bill would allow NOAA to receive priority
treatment over other creditors when making a claim on a vessel.
In addition, the section would increase from $50,000 to
$125,000 the maximum civil penalty per violation. Based on
information from NOAA, CBO estimates that this section would
cause a negligible increase in receipts. Because the agency has
the authority to spend such receipts, there would also be a
small increase in direct spending resulting from the collection
of these receipts.
In addition to levying civil penalties, NOAA has the
authority to charge individuals who injure or damage sanctuary
resources for the cost of the damage sustained. Under current
law, interest does not accrue on damage assessments. Under
section 12 of the bill, interest would accrue on any
outstanding damage payments owed under the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act. CBO estimates that this section
would cause a negligible increase in revenues and a
corresponding small increase in direct spending from these
collections. The total increase in revenues and in direct
spending from sections 9 and 12 would amount to less than
$500,000 a year.
CBO expects that establishing the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale Sanctuary would result in only those costs ($800,000)
authorized for the sanctuary. The creation of another sanctuary
could increase receipts from penalties, but this increase would
depend on a number of factors that cannot be predicted at this
time, such as the amount of traffic in the sanctuary or the
amount of the fines that would typically be assessed. Any such
receipts are not likely to be significant. In addition, CBO
estimates that establishing the sanctuary would not result in a
loss of receipts from mineral leasing activity. Based on
information from the Department of the Interior, it appears
that no mineral leases are currently in place in the designated
areas.
6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Title II and sections 9
and 12 of the bill would result in small increases in receipts
and direct spending. CBO estimates that these amounts would be
less than $500,000 in each fiscal year.
7. Estimated cost to state and local governments: None.
8. Estimate comparison: None.
9. Previous CBO estimate: On June 5, 1992, CBO prepared an
estimate for H.R. 4310, the National Marine Sanctuaries
Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1992, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. This bill is similar to the one reported in the
House. The two cost estimates differ primarily because the
funding authorized in S. 2788 is less than that in H.R. 4310.
10. Estimate prepared by: Patricia Conroy.
11. Estimate approved by: Paul Van de Water, for C.G.
Nuckols, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
* * * * * * *
S. 2603--Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004
S. 2603 would amend current law and regulations relating to
unsolicited advertisements sent via telephone facsimile
machine. The bill would direct the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to issue regulations to control such
advertisements and would require the FCC and the Government
Accountability Office to issue reports to the Congress on the
effectiveness of those regulations. The FCC currently enforces
laws relating to unsolicited advertisements, including
assessing and collecting civil penalties for violations of such
laws. (Civil penalties are recorded in the federal budget as
revenues.) Based on information from the FCC, CBO estimates
that implementing S. 2603 would not have a significant effect
on revenues or spending subject to appropriation. Enacting the
bill would not affect direct spending.
S. 2603 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
S. 2603 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in
the UMRA, on senders of unsolicited facsimile advertisements.
The bill would require senders to include an opt-out notice
that is clear, conspicuous, and on the first page. Such a
notice would allow recipients to contact the sender to prevent
them from sending unsolicited advertisements in the future.
Additionally, the opt-out notice must include ``a domestic
contact telephone and facsimile machine number for the
recipient to transmit such a request to the sender; and a cost-
free mechanism for a recipient to transmit a request.'' The
cost-free mechanism might include either a toll-free or a local
telephone number.
Regulations promulgated by the FCC in July 2003, which are
slated to take effect in January 2005, would require written
permission from recipients prior to senders' transmission of
any unsolicited fax advertisements. If this bill were enacted,
it would eliminate the requirement to obtain written permission
from customers but replace this requirement with the opt-out
mechanism. Based on information from industry sources, CBO
expects that the aggregate direct cost of mandates in the bill
would be fully offset by savings from the bill and thus would
fall below the annual threshold established by UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($120 million in 2004, adjusted
annually for inflation).
On July 7, 2004, CBO transmitted a cost-estimate for H.R.
4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004, as ordered reported
by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 24, 2004.
The two pieces of legislation are similar, and the estimated
costs are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Melissa E.
Zimmerman (for federal costs), Sarah Puro (for the state and
local impact), and Karen Raupp (for the private-sector impact).
The estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires reports for each bill or joint resolution
reported by a committee to include ``an evaluation, . . . of
the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out
the bill or joint resolution.''
Specifically, this rule requires that the evaluation
include the following:
An estimate of the number of individuals and
businesses who would be regulated and a determination
of the groups and classes of such individuals and
businesses.
A determination of the economic impact of
such regulation on the individuals, consumers, and
businesses affected.
A determination of the impact on the
personal privacy of the individuals affected.
A determination of the amount of additional
paperwork that will result from the regulations to be
promulgated pursuant to the bill or joint resolution,
which may include--
estimates of the amount of time and
financial costs required of affected parties,
showing whether the effects of the bill or
joint resolution could be substantial; and
reasonable estimates of the
recordkeeping requirements that may be
associated with the bill or joint resolution.
Staff members should not treat the regulatory impact
statement as mere boilerplate. Unlike the cost estimate, which
is prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, there is no
office to which the preparation of the regulatory impact
statement may be delegated. Resources available to the staff
for preparation of the statement include testimony presented at
hearings, the administering Federal agency for any program
established or modified by the legislation, and the
Congressional Research Service.
Particular care should be taken in stating any expected
increase or decrease in regulatory burden as the committee
report may be cited during floor debate by opponents of the
Committee's reported bill or joint resolution. The Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) in the past
has informally monitored all regulatory impact statements and
may send a letter to the chairman of any committee that files a
statement HSGAC considers to be inadequate.
Ultimately, however, the staff member must make sure that
the regulatory impact statement accurately and completely
reflects any major changes in regulatory activity. When
regulatory activity will be increased, the staff member must
provide a full and effective explanation as to the need for the
increased regulation. Any decrease in regulatory burden should
be noted as carefully and thoroughly as any increase in
regulatory burden.
Finally, if the bill or joint resolution would not affect
any of the regulatory burdens for which a determination is
required, the report should reflect that assessment. Thus, if a
bill would merely continue existing programs with little or no
change in the regulatory impact of those programs, a concise,
one paragraph regulatory impact statement will suffice.
In extraordinary circumstances, such as bills or joint
resolutions ordered reported (or reports written) during the
last week before adjournment, it may be necessary for the
committee to waive this requirement.
The waiver language is as follows:
In compliance with subsection (b)(2) of paragraph 11
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the
Committee states that, in its opinion, it is necessary
to dispense with the requirements of paragraph (1) of
that subsection in order to expedite the business of
the Senate.
The no-impact language is as follows:
Because S. ------ does not create any new programs,
the legislation will have no additional regulatory
impact, and will result in no additional reporting
requirements. The legislation will have no further
effect on the number or types of individuals and
businesses regulated, the economic impact of such
regulation, the personal privacy of affected
individuals, or the paperwork required from such
individuals and businesses.
EXAMPLES:
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
The bill, as reported, will clarify the Coast Guard's
existing authority to establish separate lines dividing the
high seas and inland waters for purposes of determining the
applicability of inland navigational rules and various marine
safety laws. It will have no effect on the number of
individuals regulated or on the personal privacy of such
persons. For the operators of barges within the lines of
demarcation, however, the costs of compliance with regulations
and the amount of paperwork required for such compliance will
be reduced.
* * * * * * *
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The bill would require the development of Federal inter-
agency assessments on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, as well
as prediction and response plans at the request of State,
tribal, and local governments. It does not authorize any new
regulations and therefore will not subject any individuals or
businesses to new regulations.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The bill would authorize $26 million in FY 2004, $26.5
million in FY 2005, $27 million in FY 2006, $27.5 million for
FY 2007, and $28 million for FY 2008. in appropriations to the
Secretary of Commerce. These funding levels are relatively
modest and are not expected to have an inflationary impact on
the nation's economy.
PRIVACY
The bill will not have any adverse impact on the personal
privacy of individuals.
* * * * * * *
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
S. 165 is intended to improve aviation security by making
modifications to P.L. 107-71, the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA). The bill affects TSA and other entities
already subject to TSA rules and regulations, and therefore the
number of persons covered should be consistent with the current
levels of individuals impacted under the provisions that are
addressed in the bill.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
S. 165 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
nation's economy. It is anticipated that Sections 2 through 6
would have positive economic impacts to their respective areas,
and should provide significant support to the aviation
industry. The bill addresses cargo security and would authorize
the necessary funding to establish a system that ensures all
air cargo is secure by requiring TSA and the air cargo industry
to take steps to protect the system.
PRIVACY
S. 165 would have minimal effect on the privacy rights of
individuals, but a provision on identification training raises
the issue of a person proving their identity, potentially with
the aid of technology. The use of biometrics and other
identifiers raise a number of questions that need to be
addressed by TSA to ensure that the privacy rights of
individuals are protected. Senator Wyden's provision is
intended to ensure privacy for passenger screening.
PAPERWORK
The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in
paperwork burdens resulting from the passage of this
legislation. In those areas where the bill does require
additional paperwork, it is aimed at improving the security of
the national air transportation system. S.165 would require the
establishment of a database to improve the system by which
known shippers of cargo are identified, and would require
reports to Congress on several security matters addressed by
other provisions.
* * * * * * *
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
Section 202(5) of this legislation would direct the
Administrator of the USFA (the Administrator) to support the
development of new voluntary consensus standards for new
firefighting technologies through national voluntary consensus
standards organizations. Recipients of grants through the
Assistance to Firefighters program, as defined by section 33 of
the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2229), would be required by regulation to purchase equipment
for which applicable voluntary consensus standards have been
established.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
This legislation would not have an adverse economic impact
on the nation. The bill would promote the development of more
effective equipment and the establishment of better
coordination and training for response to fires, terrorist
attacks, and other national emergencies.
PRIVACY
S. 1152 would not have a negative impact on the personal
privacy of individuals.
PAPERWORK
The legislation would not increase paperwork requirements
for private individuals or businesses. The bill would require
two reports from the Federal government. The first report would
be from the Administrator to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Science, within 90 days after the enactment of
this legislation, on the need for a strategy concerning the
deployment of volunteers and emergency response personnel,
including a national credentialing system, in the event of a
national emergency. The second report would be from the Under
Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response at the
Department of Homeland Security to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science, within 180 days after the
date of enactment, on revisions that the Under Secretary has
made to the Federal Response Plan for responding to terrorist
attacks, particularly in urban areas, including fire detection
and suppression, and related emergency services. The
legislation also would establish a $3,000,000 grant program for
fire fighting equipment necessary to fight fires using foam in
remote areas without access to water. Applicants to this grant
program would have to file documents to apply for this program.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
Section 521 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-81) amended the Standing Rules of the
Senate by adding a new rule XLIV, ``Congressionally Directed
Spending and Related Items'' that requires the Committee to
identify ``Congressionally directed spending items'' in
committee reports. A bill reported by the committee that
contains such an item is subject to a point of order unless the
Majority Leader certifies that each such item has been
identified ``through lists, charts, or other similar means
including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to
the committee for each identified item.''
DISCLOSABLE ITEMS
Paragraph 5(a) of the rule defines the term ``congressionally
directed spending item'' as ``a provision or report language
included primarily at the request of a Senator providing,
authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary
budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority
for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality, or Congressional district, other than
through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive award process''. The rule applies also to ``limited
tax benefits'' and ``limited tariff benefits'', but the
Committee would rarely, if ever, include such items in its
reported bills because of jurisdictional considerations.
Paragraph 4(b) of the rule requires a committee that reports
a bill or joint resolution that includes a congressionally
directed spending item, or that includes such an item in the
committee report, to identify the item on a publicly accessible
congressional website through lists, charts, or other similar
means ``as soon as practicable''. The items are to be
identified by the name of each Senator who submitted a request
to the committee for each item. The availability on the
Internet of a committee report that contains this information
satisfies this requirement.
WHAT MUST BE DISCLOSED
Paragraph 1(a)(1) of the rule requires a disclosable item to
be identified through lists, charts, or other similar means,
including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to
the committee for each identified item.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY SENATOR'S OFFICE
Paragraph 6(a) of the rule requires a Senator who requests a
congressionally directed spending item in a bill or joint
resolution to provide a written statement to the chairman and
ranking member that includes--
(1) the Senator's name;
(2) the name and location of the intended recipient,
or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the
intended location of the activity;
(3) the purpose of the item; and
(4) a certification that neither the Senator nor the
Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in
the item.
48-HOUR RULE
Paragraph 1(a)(2) of the rule requires the Majority Leader to
certify that the disclosed information has been available on a
publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable
format for at least 48 hours before the Senate votes on a
motion to proceed to consider the bill.
EXAMPLES
Congressionally Directed Spending
In accordance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following identification of congressionally directed spending
items contained in the bill, as reported:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Earmark/Provision Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Construction of Sen. Kerry
Chelsea Street Bridge
in Chelsea, MA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103 Web-based risk Sen. Kerry
management data
system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 503 Coast Guard to Sen. Kerry
maintain LORAN-C
Navigation System.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 705 Olympic Coast National Sen. Cantwell
Marine Sanctuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 707 Improved Coordination Sen. Cantwell
with tribal
governments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 716 Vessel traffic risk Sen. Stevens
assessments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 717 Oil spill liability Sen. Stevens
trust fund investment
amount data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 904 Data................. Sen. Stevens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 918 Fur Seal Act Sen. Stevens
authorization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 919 Study of relocation of Sen. Clinton
Coast Guard Sector
Buffalo facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
* * * * * * *
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following identification of congressionally directed spending
items contained in the bill, as reported:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Provision Member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 805 Olympic Senator
Coast Cantwell
National
Marine
Sanctuary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 814 Oil spill Senator
liability Begich
trust fund
investment
amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
This section of the report contains a detailed analysis of
the reported bill. It begins with the first section of the bill
and proceeds in numerical order by section until all sections
of the bill have been discussed.
The discussion of each section should contain such analysis
and amplification as is necessary to make clear the intent of
the provision. If the intent of the provision is evident on its
face, no further amplification is needed or desirable. The
staff member should merely describe that section, taking care
to be sure that the description does not appear to change the
meaning of the provision in any way.
There will be instances in which the Committee wishes to
amplify the intent of a provision, including--
(1) expressing the Committee's view or expectation as
to how a provision is to be implemented;
(2) providing examples of how complex provisions are
intended to work in real-life situations; and
(3) providing guidance as to how qualifying words and
phrases, such as ``reasonable'', ``substantial'', and
``to the greatest extent practicable'' should be
interpreted.
Particular care should be taken in writing such material,
as the courts and administering agencies may turn to the
section-by-section analysis for guidance in interpreting the
statutory language, particularly if its application to a
specific set of circumstances is unanticipated or unclear. If
the section-by-section analysis is carelessly written, the risk
that the court or administering agency may reach an
interpretation that is at odds with the Committee's
expectations is increased.
If the text of a section was changed significantly by
amendment during the mark-up, it may be helpful to describe the
text of the section as it appeared in the original text before
describing the section as amended so a reader may more easily
grasp the policy concerns of the Committee in adopting the
amendment.
While each section of a bill must be described, it is not
necessary to include a description of every subsection. If, on
the other hand, a subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, or
clause is critical to the interpretation of the section, then
it should be separately described. The analysis of a section
setting forth the definition of various terms used in a bill
might read as follows: ``Section 2 contains the definitions of
26 terms used in the bill, of which the most important are the
following: . . .''.
EXAMPLES \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Because of length, only portions of the section-by-section
analyses are shown in the examples).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. Short title.
This section would provide that the legislation may be
cited as the ``Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003'' or as the ``CAN-SPAM
Act of 2003''.
Section 2. Congressional findings and policy.
* * * * * * *
Section 3. Definitions.
This section would define 19 terms used throughout the
bill, some of which have a specific contextual meaning in the
statutory regime created by the legislation. The following
definitions included in S. 877 are of particular importance:
Affirmative Consent.--The term ``affirmative
consent'' means that the message is being sent with the
express consent of the recipient. Pursuant to this
definition, affirmative consent is intended to require
some kind of active choice or selection by the
recipient; merely remaining passive, as in the case
where a consumer fails to modify a default setting
expressing consent, is not a sufficient basis for
affirmative consent. If the recipient's consent was
prompted by a request for such consent, as opposed to
consent expressed at the recipient's own initiation (as
in the case where a consumer wants a product catalogue
and e-mails the company to ask for it), then such
request must be clear and conspicuous or affirmative
consent will not be deemed present. This definition
does not require consent on an individual, sender-by-
sender basis. A recipient could affirmatively consent
to messages from one particular company, but could also
consent to receive either messages on a particular
subject matter (e.g., gardening products) without
regard to the identity of the sender, or messages from
unnamed marketing partners of a particular company. The
only limitation on such third-party affirmative consent
is that the person granting such consent must have been
provided clear and conspicuous notice, at the time such
consent is granted, that the person's e-mail address
may be transferred to such third parties. The purpose
of this limitation is to ensure that consumers are
fully informed of the scope of any third-party consent
they may grant.
Commercial Electronic Mail Message.--The term
``commercial electronic mail message'' means any
electronic mail message where the primary purpose is
the commercial advertisement or promotion of a product
or service. This definition is intended to cover
marketing e-mails. Advertisements for content on an
Internet website operated for a commercial purpose are
included within the definition because an e-mail urging
the recipient to visit a particular commercial website
is just as much a marketing message as an e-mail urging
the purchase of a specific product or service. However,
the definition is not intended to cover an e-mail that
has a primary purpose other than marketing, even if it
mentions or contains a link to the website of a
commercial company or contains an ancillary marketing
pitch.
Electronic Mail Message.--The term electronic mail
message means a message sent to a unique electronic
mail address. The definition is intended to apply to
the message in the form that it is sent, regardless of
whether or in what form it is received. For example, an
electronic mail message may be blocked by filtering
software, or truncated or altered by some other type of
software installed by the recipient or the recipient's
Internet service provider. Such downstream effects have
no impact on what constitutes the underlying electronic
mail message for purposes of this Act.
Header Information.--The term ``header information''
means the source, destination, and routing information
attached to the beginning of an e-mail message,
including the originating domain name and originating
e-mail address, and any other information that appears
in the line purporting to identify the person
initiating the message (commonly referred to as the
``from'' line).
Implied Consent.--The term ``implied consent'', in
reference to a commercial e-mail message, means that
two requirements are met. First, a business
transaction, between the sender and recipient, must
have occurred within a 3-year period ending upon
receipt of the message. A business transaction may
include a transaction involving the provision, free of
charge, of information, goods, or services requested by
the recipient. However, merely visiting a free website
and browsing its content does not constitute a
``transaction'' for purposes of this definition.
Second, the recipient of the message must have been
given clear and conspicuous notice of an opportunity
not to receive UCE from the sender and has not
exercised that opportunity. Unlike affirmative consent,
implied consent does not require an active choice or
request by the recipient, so long as the recipient has
been given the ability via conspicuous notice to
decline receiving additional messages from the sender.
The definition also clarifies that a recipient's
implied consent may apply only to a particular division
or line of business within a particular corporation,
rather than the entire corporation, if the corporation
represented itself as a particular division or line of
business in its dealings with the recipient. The
rationale for this is that it would be unfair to read
the recipient's implied consent more broadly, when the
recipient may not have been aware of the identity of
the broader corporation.
* * * * * * *
Procure.--The term ``procure'', when used with
respect to the initiation of a commercial electronic
mail message, means intentionally to pay or induce
another person to initiate the message on one's behalf,
while knowingly or consciously avoiding knowing the
extent to which that person intends to comply with this
Act. The intent of this definition is to make a company
responsible for e-mail messages that it hires a third
party to send, unless that third party engages in
renegade behavior that the hiring company did not know
about. However, the hiring company cannot avoid
responsibility by purposefully remaining ignorant of
the third party's practices. The ``consciously avoids
knowing'' portion of this definition is meant to impose
a responsibility on a company hiring an e-mail marketer
to inquire and confirm that the marketer intends to
comply with the requirements of this Act.
* * * * * * *
Section 2. Authorization of appropriations.
This section would amend section 32(a) of the CPSA to
authorize appropriations for the CPSC not to exceed $60,000,000
for fiscal year 2004, $66,800,000 for fiscal year 2005,
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $73,600,000 for fiscal
year 2007.
Section 3. FTE staffing levels.
This section would amend section 4(g) of the CPSA to
authorize the Commission to hire and maintain a full-time
equivalent staff of 471 persons throughout the reauthorization
period.
Section 4. Executive director and officers.
This section would amend section 4(g) of the CPSA to
conform the Commission's employee position titles that
currently exist but that have not been formally authorized. No
staff title changes entail the re-designation of career staff
as political staff, or vice versa.
Section 5. Substantial product hazard recalls.
This section would amend section 15 of the CPSA to
authorize the Commission to conduct defective product recall
notification otherwise required of a manufacturer, retailer, or
distributor under the CPSA. Pursuant to this section, in the
event that the Commission makes a preliminary hazard
determination that there exists a Class A or B product hazard
(as defined in the CPSC handbook), and the Commission finds
that the manufacturer, retailer, or distributor is financially
unable to provide adequate notification to the consumers of the
product as required by the CPSA and that such notification is
the public interest, then the Commission may provide
notification. This section would require that within 120 days
of enactment, the Commission prescribe strict standards for
determining when a manufacturer is financially unable to effect
adequate notifications required by the CPSA.
* * * * * * *
Section 3. Chairman designated with Senate confirmation.
Section 3 would make the President's designation of one of
the STB members to serve as Chairman subject to Senate
confirmation.
Section 4. Expedited procedure for small rate challenges.
Section 4 would require the STB to issue new regulations to
address small rate challenges within 180 days following
enactment. The rules would establish standards for determining
what rate cases will be eligible to use expedited procedures
taking into account the size of the shipper, the value of the
case and other relevant factors, and establish the specific
test or tests for determining whether the challenged rate is
reasonable. Filing fees in small rate cases would not exceed
the fee charged to bring a civil action in United States
District Court. An initial decision could be made by an ALJ,
with an opportunity to appeal the ALJ's decision to the Board.
Finally, the amendment would require the STB to make
recommendations to Congress for any additional legislative
changes the Board determines are necessary to address the
handling of small rate cases.
Section 5. Application of certain agreements.
This section would codify the voluntary agreement reached
by railroad labor and railroad management in March 2001 with
respect to the implementation of collective bargaining
agreements in the event of additional mergers. It provides that
when newly consolidated rail operations involving the
signatories to the agreement are subject to multiple collective
bargaining agreements, the labor union parties, rather than the
rail management parties, may choose which collective bargaining
agreement will govern the new operations. Codifying this
agreement would ensure that it will not be set aside by STB-
appointed arbitrators in the event of another round of mergers.
* * * * * * *
Section 2. Definitions.
Section 2 would define the key terms, ``Administrator'' and
``NASA.''
Section 3. Findings.
Section 3 would identify key findings of the bill
concerning the history, the future, and the value of programs
at NASA.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 101. Exploration capabilities.
Section 101 would authorize funding in the following areas:
(1) International Space Station; (2) Space Shuttle; (3) Space
Flight Support; (4) Transportation Systems; and (5) Human and
Robotic Technology. The funding amounts for each of these areas
for FY 2005 through FY 2009 are as shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3--Authorization Levels
(In $ millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration Capabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Space Station 1,863 1,764 1,780 1,779 2,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuttle 4,319 4,326 4,314 4,027 3,030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Flight Support 492 435 430 456 453
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Systems 689 1,261 1,624 1,423 1,863
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human and Robotic Tech. 1,079 1,303 1,301 1,370 1,433
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration and Aeronautics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Science 4,138 4,404 4,906 5,520 5,561
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth Science 1,485 1,390 1,368 1,343 1,474
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological/Physical Research 1,049 950 938 941 944
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautics Technology 919 957 938 926 942
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education 169 169 171 170 170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspector General 28 29 30 31 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA 15 16 16 16 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 16,245 17,003 17,816 18,002 18,034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 102. Exploration, science, and aeronautics.
Section 102 would authorize funding in the following areas:
(1) Space Science; (2) Earth Science; (3) Biological and
Physical Research; (4) Aeronautics Technology; and (5)
Education. The funding amounts for each of these areas for FY
2005 through FY 2009 are as shown in Figure 3.
* * * * * * *
Section 105. Total authorizations.
Section 105 would provide the total authorization levels
for NASA for FY 2005 through FY 2009 and are as shown in Figure
3. The bill would provide authorizations for a total of five
years for NASA. Many research projects involved several years
of effort before results can be realized. The Committee
acknowledges that many things can change within a five year
period. Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned that NASA has
not continued its support for certain research areas for the
entire duration of the authorization period. During the
previous NASA authorization act (P.L. 106-391), authorization
was included for immediate clinical trials for islet
transplantation in patients with Type I diabetes utilizing
immunoisolation technologies derived from NASA space flights.
NASA funded the initial research into this area but failed to
provide all of the authorized levels prescribed by the
authorization legislation. The research has progressed
successfully while NASA has missed an opportunity to support
the space technology for the development of a bio-mechanical
system that may be used by medical professionals to treat
diabetic patients as well as many other hormone deficient
diseases.
VOTES IN COMMITTEE
Paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires bills or joint resolutions ordered reported by
a committee to include ``a tabulation of the votes cast by each
member of the committee in favor or and in opposition to such
measure or matter.'' The committee report, thus, must include a
description of, and a list of the votes for and against, any
amendment considered during mark-up on which there is a
rollcall vote, as well as any rollcall vote ordering a bill or
joint resolution to be reported. Any votes made by proxy should
be indicated as such.
The description may also include a short statement of any
measure adopted by voice vote that is subsequently modified by
action taken by rollcall vote.
In recent practice (since the 108th Congress) the Committee
has agreed at the beginning of an executive session to report
some or all of the bills on the agenda subject to further
amendment. This is usually phrased as a unanimous consent
request to a motion, offered typically by the ranking member,
that the measures be reported ``subject to further
amendment.''. For reporting purposes, this consent to the
Chairman's unanimous consent request is treated as if it were a
voice vote. Occasionally, this practice has extended to include
the adoption, by voice vote, of a package of amendments
(usually referred to as ``a manager's amendment'') or a
substitute amendment ``subject to further amendment''. After
agreeing to the motion, the Committee may proceed to further
consideration of the bills ordered reported and may adopt
additional amendments by voice or rollcall vote. (This is the
reverse of the Senate floor procedure under which all
amendments are disposed of before a vote is taken on a bill as
amended.) A short description of the action taken by voice vote
will explain more clearly to the reader what the Committee did.
The Committee clerk keeps a tally sheet record of the
rollcall votes taken during an executive session and that
record, kept in the Committee's Public Information Office, is
part of the official records of the Committee. The Committee's
Legislative Counsel will prepare and format the list of votes
for the report, but the description of the subject matter on
which the vote was taken is written by the committee staff.
EXAMPLES
Senator Ensign offered an amendment, to the amendment (in
the nature of a substitute) offered by Senator McCain, to
increase the number of extraperimeter slots at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport. By rollcall vote of 11 yeas and 11
nays as follows, the amendment was defeated:
YEAS--11 NAYS--11
Mr. Stevens\1\ Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Burns Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Lott Mr. Allen
Mrs. Hutchison\1\ Mr. Hollings
Mr. Brownback\1\ Mr. Inouye\1\
Mr. Smith Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Ensign Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Wyden Mr. Breaux\1\
Mrs. Boxer Mr. Dorgan
Ms. Cantwell Mr. Nelson
Mr. McCain Mr. Lautenberg
\1\By proxy
Senator Boxer offered an amendment, to the amendment (in
the nature of a substitute) offered by Senator McCain, to
improve the training requirements for and require the
certification of cabin crew members. By rollcall vote of 12
yeas and 10 nays as follows, the amendment was adopted:
YEAS--12 NAYS--10
Mr. Smith Mr. Burns
Mr. Hollings Mr. Lott
Ms. Inouye\1\ Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Rockefeller\1\ Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Kerry\1\ Mr. Brownback
Mr. Breaux\1\ Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Dorgan\1\ Mr. Ensign
Mr. Wyden\1\ Mr. Allen
Mrs. Boxer Mr. Sununu
Mr. Nelson Mr. Lautenberg
Ms. Cantwell
Mr. McCain
\1\By proxy
Mr. Hollings made a motion to reconsider the vote by
which the Ensign amendment was defeated. By rollcall vote of 12
yeas and 10 nays as follows, Mr. McCain voting present, the
motion carried:
YEAS--12 NAYS--10
Mr. Stevens\1\ Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Burns Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Lott Mr. Allen
Mrs. Hutchison Mr. Inouye\1\
Mr. Brownback Mr. Rockefeller\1\
Mr. Smith Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Ensign Mr. Breaux\1\
Mr. Sununu Mr. Dorgan\1\
Mr. Hollings Mr. Nelson
Mr. Wyden\1\ Mr. Lautenberg
Mrs. Boxer
Ms. Cantwell
\1\By proxy
The Committee reconsidered the vote by which the Ensign
amendment was defeated. By rollcall vote of 12 yeas and 11 nays
as follows, the amendment was adopted:
YEAS--12 NAYS--11
Mr. Stevens\1\ Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Burns Mr. Fitzgerald\1\
Mr. Lott Mr. Allen
Mrs. Hutchison Mr. Hollings
Mr. Brownback Mr. Inouye\1\
Mr. Smith Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Ensign Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Sununu Mr. Breaux\1\
Mr. Wyden\1\ Mr. Dorgan\1\
Mrs. Boxer\1\ Mr. Nelson
Ms. Cantwell Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. McCain
\1\By proxy
* * * * * * *
Senator Breaux offered an amendment to apply the penalties
for obscene, etc., broadcasting to multichannel video
programming distributors (other than with respect to pay-per-
view, etc., programming) until the FCC determines that 85
percent of the households with children are using the V-chip or
similar technology to block offensive programming or have
affirmatively opted out of using it. By rollcall vote of 11
yeas and 12 nays as follows, the amendment was defeated:
YEAS--11 NAYS--12
Mr. Lott Mr. Stevens
Mr. Ensign Mr. Burns
Mr. Hollings Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Rockefeller\1\ Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Kerry\1\ Mr. Brownback
Mr. Breaux Mr. Smith
Mr. Dorgan Mr. Fitzgerald
Mr. Wyden Mr. Allen
Mrs. Boxer Mr. Sununu
Mr. Nelson Mr. Inouye
Mr. McCain Ms. Cantwell
Mr. Lautenberg\1\
\1\By proxy
By a rollcall vote of 23 yeas and 0 nays as follows, the
bill was ordered reported with amendments:
YEAS--23 NAYS--0
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Burns
Mr. Lott
Mrs. Hutchison\1\
Ms. Snowe\1\
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Smith
Mr. Fitzgerald
Mr. Ensign
Mr. Allen
Mr. Sununu\1\
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Rockefeller\1\
Mr. Kerry\1\
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Wyden
Mrs. Boxer
Mr. Nelson
Ms. Cantwell\1\
Mr. Lautenberg\1\
Mr. McCain
\1\By proxy
AGENCY COMMENTS
This section of the report is optional. Agency comments
generally would be received by the Committee in the context of
a hearing and may be discussed in the legislative history. This
section, nonetheless, may contain any relevant agency comments
on a proposed bill or joint resolution submitted by a
government agency for the Committee's consideration. The
comments should be printed only if they are particularly
relevant to the consideration of a portion of the bill, or if
significant comments were received after the hearing on the
measure. This section may also be an appropriate place to
include agency comments submitted in response to a request from
the Committee during or after the hearing process.
If the agency comment includes a lengthy attachment, it is
sufficient to note that the attachment was received and is
contained in the Committee files.
SUPPLEMENTAL, MINORITY, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Paragraph 10(c) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate provides that ``If at the time of approval of a measure
or matter by any committee . . . , any member of the committee
gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, or
additional views, that member shall be entitled to not less
than three calendar days in which to file such views. All such
views so filed by one or more members of the committee shall be
included within, and shall be made a part of, the report filed
by the committee with respect to that measure or matter.''
In recent practice, the Committee has not strictly enforced
this rule with respect to its reports, and has included
supplemental, minority, or additional views in its reports
without regard to whether timely notice has been given and
without regard to when the views were filed with the committee.
Supplemental, minority, or additional views may either
support or disagree with the Committee position on a bill or
joint resolution. Minority views may only be submitted by a
Senator who voted against the amendment that is the subject of
those views or against reporting the bill or resolution.
Generally, supplemental, minority, or additional views are
drafted by the staff of the Senator whose views are expressed
and those views are not subject to editing by committee staff.
The Senator's staff should deliver a copy of the views directly
to the Committee's Legislative Counsel, although the staff
member may wish to provide a courtesy copy to the committee
staff members responsible for preparing the overall report. It
is considered inappropriate, however, for the committee staff
to respond, in the report, to supplemental, minority, or
additional views submitted by or on behalf of a Senator.
EXAMPLES
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR HOLLINGS
I applaud this bill as an attempt to achieve necessary
reforms in human space flight and to endorse the results of the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board regarding the management
and institutional problems that exist at NASA. However, I have
serious concerns about the redirection given to NASA by this
Administration and the consequences, unintended though they may
be, for the future of space in the nation's civil and economic
endeavors.
Specifically, I applaud the measures the bill's provisions
that:
(1) endorse the results of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board regarding the Shuttle Return-to-
Flight and other changes at NASA to improve the safety
and technical engineering management of the agency;
(2) authorize an expansion of robotic study and
exploration of Earth's solar system;
(3) call on NASA aggressively to purse a new human
crewed vehicle and safe concepts of space flight
operation;
(4) enhance the participation in space and ensure a
new spirit of openness and inclusion of the space
industry and other nations in NASA's exploration
program;
(5) establish, as a matter of policy, that it is
contrary to the interests of the United States to have
a sustained period of interruption in U.S. human space
flight capabilities that would disrupt relationships
with other nations, make industry investments
uncertain, introduce discontinuities in science, risk
the sustainability of the unique skills acquired over
many years among human space flight managers and
operations personnel, and allow anyone to question the
preeminent status and role of the United States as the
world's leader in human space flight operations and
engineering; and
(6) seek to improve NASA program and financial
management.
But the bill does not go far enough in a number of areas
and, in some, goes too far indeed. The bill endorses NASA's
program for the next five years and then seeks to create a
measure of control over NASA spending, priorities, and purposes
that is illusory at best.
My own assessment of the cost of NASA's redirection is that
it sacrifices more than NASA lets on, causing severe
dislocations to long-standing NASA initiatives in basic
physics, solar, Earth, and aeronautics research. Moreover, we
do not know the final price tag of this shift in U.S. space
policy, and future dislocations that may result.
While the Administration is undergoing a review of its
space transportation policy, it has not yet announced which
Federal agency will be responsible for U.S. space
transportation in the future. We do not know how NASA's new
program, focused narrowly on deep space exploration ``beyond
low Earth orbit,'' relates to the original broader purpose of
the 1958 Space Act, to establish a single, U.S. civilian agency
to oversee and sponsor all U.S. research, development, and
technological advancement in aeronautics and space. If NASA and
it's $15 billion budget will only be dedicated to planetary
exploration and not these broader purposes, which agency will
oversee and perform those activities and where will that
funding come from? These are questions that all of us in
Congress have asked ourselves and we do not have the answers.
Not only do we not have a price tag, we do not have a plan.
I understand the impetus of those who want us to move out in
this new direction, restoring credibility and sustainability to
this pursuit; but I do not understand the urgency and
impatience. In order to meet the third criteria set out by the
President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space
Exploration Policy (aka the Aldridge Commission),
affordability, I do not know how we can proceed to enact five
years of funding for a program that hasn't even been defined
yet. As I have said before, this ``go-as-you-pay'' approach is
merely a license to throw fiscal discipline out the window and
drag out projects until they never finish, nothing more,
nothing less.
Throughout the past year and a half, there have been two
basic objectives in my approach to NASA and the future of U.S.
space policy. The first is to rationally address the nation's
future ambitions in space, given the significance of the loss
of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the healthy bout of soul-
searching about the future that has engaged the nation. The
second is to achieve a public accounting for the loss, without
recrimination but with a steadfast resolve to ensure that the
circumstances that led us here are never repeated again.
Sadly, I must say that I have failed in those causes. I
cannot say that I believe the nation has taken the Columbia
tragedy to heart, fully contemplating and addressing all the
antecedents, circumstances, and causes of the failure of this
institution, this program, and this vehicle. I and others,
including the members of the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board, believe that many of these root causes are mired in the
circumstances of an agency pressed to accomplish too much with
too little and as a result promising to do more than could
humanly be delivered. It is not obvious to me, given the events
that have occurred since the accident, that this cycle has been
broken.
Second, it is not clear to me that NASA has fully learned
the lessons of Columbia and, before it, the common set of
lessons of the Challenger disaster. I hope, in coming and
future years, that NASA is able and willing to step back more
fully from these disasters, once the passion of re-flight is
past, to listen even more deeply to what the safety, behavioral
science, and organizational research community is trying to say
about the demands of being an enduring, high reliability
organization. No doubt, there is an impressive steadfastness to
NASA's recovery actions, but true reform is something more to
achieve than a one or two year set of ``behavioral
adjustments'' and re-flight events.
In order to achieve real reform, I believe NASA must make
fundamental changes in its principles of management and in its
organization, the distribution of its roles and
responsibilities, and in the performance of its functions of
safety in flight operations, not just in its advisory processes
of safety in development and engineering. This was a core theme
in the recommendations of the Rogers Commission at the time of
the Challenger disaster and should now be revisited.
Lastly, let none of these words discount the bravery and
earnestness of astronauts and the operators, engineers, and
safety officials who stand behind them. The strength of NASA
and our space industry is its people. Together we can move NASA
forward.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR ALLEN
S.1963 is unnecessary and counterproductive for an industry
that has a proven track record of innovation, lower prices, and
protecting consumer privacy. The six largest wireless carriers,
representing more than three-quarters of all subscribers, \1\
have specifically committed to this Committee that they will
safeguard the privacy of wireless phone numbers, either by
creating a directory assistance database that includes only the
numbers of subscribers who affirmatively choose to be listed
through an opt-in method or by not participating in any
wireless directory assistance program. Those carriers who are
planning a database have further committed not to charge
subscribers who elect to keep their wireless numbers unlisted
or if they elect to remove their numbers from the database. In
testimony before the Committee, the wireless industry also
assured us that wireless numbers from the directory assistance
database will not be published in a directory and that the
aggregated database will not be sold to any third-party or be
available anywhere on the Internet. Finally, child privacy will
be protected because customers must be 18 years or older to
sign a contract and choose whether to be listed in the
database. In the face of these commitments, I see no need for
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive
Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Service, Ninth
Report, FCC 04-216 Paragraph 20 and Table 4 (rel. Sept. 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislating in advance of any evidence of a problem is not
only unnecessary in this case, it is also counterproductive.
The wireless industry has thrived in the deregulatory
environment established by Congress in 1993 and is now one of
the country's most competitive businesses. More than 90 percent
of Americans live in markets served by four or more wireless
operators, and a nearly ubiquitous 98 percent of Americans live
in a market served by three or more operators. Competition has
driven wireless carriers to offer better service at lower
prices. Carriers compete on the basis of service and feature
options and calling plans, including lower prices, free
voicemail, caller ID, and 3-way calling. Competitive forces in
the wireless industry will discipline market participants more
effectively than any regulator or regulation can.
Imposing government rules for a wireless service offering
would represent a marked and unjustified departure from the
successful bipartisan policy of deregulation. Faced with
unnecessary government regulation, carriers may decide not to
offer a directory assistance database at all, leaving small
businesses and others who rely substantially or even
exclusively on their wireless phones no other choice but to pay
to have their number listed in a landline directory--if they
have that option at all, which many do not. The bill may even
deter future innovations and industry initiatives for fear
government mandates will be added even before the first
customer signs up.
Representative of the problems with this bill is the
requirement that all telecommunications carriers, wireline as
well as wireless, ``mask'' wireless telephone number
information in the bills they send to their customers. While
seemingly innocuous, compliance with this mandate would be
costly and onerous. Carriers would essentially have to create a
separate database of customers who elected not to have their
number included in the directory assistance database, and every
wireline and wireless carrier would have to check bills against
that database to remove any numbers of customers who had not
opted into the directory. No carrier currently has the
technology to create the required database, query it, and
reflect the results on bills. Requiring the creation of a
separate database as a condition of providing directory
assistance creates a very real risk that the entire directory
assistance project will be deferred or even abandoned, to the
detriment of consumers who desire such a resource.
Let me be clear that consumer privacy must be effectively
protected, in the context of wireless services and otherwise.
If wireless carriers do not act in conformance with the
commitments they have made to us, I would not hesitate to
support remedial legislation. In this case, however, passing a
law when there no evidence of harm and every indication that
statutory intervention is unneeded not only puts the cart
before the horse, it will discourage the private sector from
even trying to develop non-regulatory solutions to such matters
as privacy protection. For these reasons, I oppose S. 1963.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR MCCAIN AND SENATOR HOLLINGS
During the Committee's consideration of S. 2645, it was the
Committee's intent to adopt an amendment offered by Senators
McCain and Hollings to increase the authorization amounts and
make other changes to the underlying bill. Due to the
invocation of a Senate rule, the consideration of amendments to
this bill was prevented. It is our expectation and hope,
however, that this amendment will be agreed to and accepted as
this legislation receives further consideration before the full
Senate.
The amendment would authorize the CPB's annual funding
account at the following levels:
$428 million for FY 2007;
$458 million for FY 2008;
$490 million for FY 2009;
$524 million for FY 2010; and
$560 million for FY 2011.
The amendment would authorize the Department of Commerce's
PTFP program at the following levels:
$50,000,000 for FY 2005;
$53,500,000 for FY 2006;
$57,240,000 for FY 2007;
$61,240,000 for FY 2008;
$64,200,000 for FY 2009;
$68,480,000 for FY 2010; and
$73,270,000 for FY 2011.
The amendment would also add an additional section to the
bill relating to representatives, organizations, affinity
groups, and rural communities.
Under current law, a nine-person Board of Directors governs
CPB, sets policy, and establishes programming priorities. Only
five members of the board at any time may be from one political
party. The President appoints each member, who, after
confirmation by the Senate, serves a six-year term. By statute,
Board members must be United States citizens who are ``eminent
in such fields as education, cultural and civic affairs, or the
arts, including radio and television''. (47 U.S.C. 396(c)(2))
Additionally, at least two members of the Board must be persons
representing public broadcasting licensees.
The additional section would amend the law to clarify that
at least one of the nine-member CPB Board should be selected
from among individuals who represent the licensees and
permittees of public television stations, and that at least one
additional CPB Board member should be selected from among
individuals who represent the licensees and permittees of
public radio stations. Although the President has full
discretion in selecting his nominees to the CPB Board, the
President is urged to give consideration to the suggestions
made by the licensees and permittees. Additionally, the
Committee encourages the President to select board members who
represent the diverse geography of licensees and permittees--
rural, urban, non-contiguous States, territories, and Native
American reservations.
In addition, to ensure that CPB's funding priorities are
responsive to the needs of local stations and the communities
they serve, this section would amend various portions of the
law to require consultation with public radio and television
licensees and representatives designated by their national
organizations when allocating money from CPB's national
programming fund, its digital fund, the fund for Community
Service Grants, and the Interconnection Fund. Organizations
like APTS, PBS, and NPR are member service organizations that
represent the vast majority of local stations. They have
elected boards that are representative of the diversity of
types of local stations and can play a constructive role in
assisting CPB with developing policies and procedures that will
enhance localism and service to communities.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that whenever a committee reports a bill or
joint resolution repealing or amending any statute, the reports
shall include ``(a) the text of the statute or part thereof
which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print
of that part of the bill or joint resolution proposed to be
amended, showing by stricken-through type and italics, parallel
columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the
omissions and insertions which would be made by the bill or
joint resolution.'' This rule is commonly referred to in the
Senate as the ``Cordon Rule''. A similar rule in the House of
Representatives is commonly known as the ``Ramseyer Rule''.
As with the statement of estimated costs and the regulatory
impact statement, this part of the report may be waived by the
committee where ``in the opinion of the committee, it is
necessary to dispense with the requirements . . . to expedite
the business of the Senate''.
It is important to distinguish between a provision
contained in a bill or joint resolution that repeals or amends
an existing provision of law--which should be shown in this
part of the report--and a provision contained in a bill or
joint resolution that, if enacted, would become law without
changing the text of any existing statute. The latter, often
referred to as a ``stand-alone provision'' is not shown in this
part, notwithstanding the fact that its enactment would create
a new provision of Federal law, because it does not alter or
repeal the text of an existing statute.
If the bill or joint resolution, as ordered reported, does
not alter or repeal the text of an existing statute, then the
report should state that the bill or joint resolution makes no
change in existing law.
This section of the report is prepared by the Committee's
Legislative Counsel, based on the final pre-filing version of
the bill or joint resolution as ordered reported.
The waiver language is as follows:
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states
that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of that paragraph in order to expedite
the business of the Senate.
The no change language is as follows:
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that
the bill as reported would make no change to existing
law.
EXAMPLES
[Modification of existing statutory text]
Changes In Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO
PART IV. ASSISTANCE FOR PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, FACILITIES;
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATIONS; CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Subpart A--Assistance for Public Telecommunications Facilities
SEC. 391. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
[47 U.S.C. 391]
There are authorized to be appropriated [$42,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994,] $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, $52,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $54,008,000
for fiscal year 2007, $56,240,000 for fiscal year 2008,
$58,490,000 for fiscal year 2009, $60,820,000 for fiscal year
2010, and $63,250,000 for fiscal year 2011, to be used by the
Secretary of Commerce to assist in the planning and
construction of public telecommunications [facilities]
facilities, including analog and digital broadcast facilities
and equipment, as provided in this subpart. Sums appropriated
under this subpart for any fiscal year shall remain available
until expended for payment of grants for projects for which
applications approved by the Secretary pursuant to this subpart
have been submitted within such fiscal year. Sums appropriated
under this subpart may be used by the Secretary to cover the
cost of administering the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * * * *
[Addition of new section]
Changes In Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER. 63. MAIL FRAUD
Sec. 1351. Commercial electronic mail containing fraudulent
transmission information
(a) In General.--Any person who initiates the transmission,
to a protected computer in the United States, of a commercial
electronic mail message, with knowledge and intent that the
message contains or is accompanied by header information that
is materially false or materially misleading shall be fined or
imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, under this title.
For purposes of this subsection, header information that is
technically accurate but includes an originating electronic
mail address the access to which for purposes of initiating the
message was obtained by means of false or fraudulent pretense
or representations, shall be considered materially misleading.
(b) Definitions.-- Any term used in subsection (a) that is
defined in section 3 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 has the
meaning given it in that section.
* * * * * * *
[Repeal of section]
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
[PUBLIC LAW 106-553, APPENDIX B; 114 STAT. 2762A-111]
[Sec. 632. (a)(1) The Federal Communications Commission
shall modify the rules authorizing the operation of low-power
FM radio stations, as proposed in MM Docket No. 99-25, to--
[(A) prescribe minimum distance separations for
third-adjacent channels (as well as for co-channels and
first- and second-adjacent channels); and
[(B) prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-
power FM license if the applicant has engaged in any
manner in the unlicensed operation of any station in
violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 301).
[(2) The Federal Communications Commission may not--
[(A) eliminate or reduce the minimum distance
separations for third-adjacent channels required by
paragraph (1)(A); or
[(B) extend the eligibility for application for low-
power FM stations beyond the organizations and entities
as proposed in MM Docket No. 99-25 (47 CFR 73.853),
except as expressly authorized by an Act of Congress
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
[(3) Any license that was issued by the Commission to
a low-power FM station prior to the date on which the
Commission modifies its rules as required by paragraph
(1) and that does not comply with such modifications
shall be invalid.
[(b)(1) The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct
an experimental program to test whether low-power FM radio
stations will result in harmful interference to existing FM
radio stations if such stations are not subject to the minimum
distance separations for third-adjacent channels required by
subsection (a). The Commission shall conduct such test in no
more than nine FM radio markets, including urban, suburban, and
rural markets, by waiving the minimum distance separations for
third-adjacent channels for the stations that are the subject
of the experimental program. At least one of the stations shall
be selected for the purpose of evaluating whether minimum
distance separations for third-adjacent channels are needed for
FM translator stations. The Commission may, consistent with the
public interest, continue after the conclusion of the
experimental program to waive the minimum distance separations
for third-adjacent channels for the stations that are the
subject of the experimental program.
[(2) The Commission shall select an independent testing
entity to conduct field tests in the markets of the stations in
the experimental program under paragraph (1). Such field tests
shall include--
[(A) an opportunity for the public to comment on
interference; and
[(B) independent audience listening tests to
determine what is objectionable and harmful
interference to the average radio listener.
[(3) The Commission shall publish the results of the
experimental program and field tests and afford an opportunity
for the public to comment on such results. The Federal
Communications Commission shall submit a report on the
experimental program and field tests to the Committee on
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later
than February 1, 2001. Such report shall include--
[(A) an analysis of the experimental program and
field tests and of the public comment received by the
Commission;
[(B) an evaluation of the impact of the modification
or elimination of minimum distance separations for
third-adjacent channels on--
[(i) listening audiences;
[(ii) incumbent FM radio broadcasters in
general, and on minority and small market
broadcasters in particular, including an
analysis of the economic impact on such
broadcasters;
[(iii) the transition to digital radio for
terrestrial radio broadcasters;
[(iv) stations that provide a reading service
for the blind to the public; and
[(v) FM radio translator stations;
[(C) the Commission's recommendations to the Congress
to reduce or eliminate the minimum distance separations
for third-adjacent channels required by subsection (a);
and
[(D) such other information and recommendations as
the Commission considers appropriate.]
* * * * * * *
[No amendment or repeal]
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as
reported would make no change to existing law.
VERY SHORT OR VERY LONG MEASURES
If a bill is very short or very long, it is appropriate to
modify the report format as necessary.
For very short bills, sections may be combined or omitted
if this would prevent needless repetition of material that has
already been presented. There is nothing wrong with a 1-page
report if one is dealing with a routine, 1-paragraph bill
establishing National Salt Water Taffy Week. The summary of
major provisions section is frequently omitted in shorter bills
that do not really have major and minor provisions. A report
does not need separate sections for background and needs, a
summary of major provisions, and a section-by-section analysis
if it is to accompany a one section bill that merely
reauthorizes appropriations for the Federal Widget Commission.
For particularly long, complex, or controversial bills
(such as transportation deregulation, telecommunications
reform, or broadcast obscenity rules), it is appropriate to
expand the report to deal with, e.g., different industry
segments or constitutional issues raised by the measure.
A long report is not very helpful if the reader is unable
to find needed information quickly and easily. The general
proposition that information should be presented as concisely
and clearly as possible applies with special emphasis in a
longer report.
Special care should be taken to limit the discussion to
essential material and to rework that discussion until it is as
clear and concise as possible. Short paragraphs, the frequent
use of headings and subheadings, bullet points, and even a
table of contents will aid the reader in finding needed
information quickly.
Make sure, as nearly as possible, that the discussion of
each major issue occurs in one easily located place in the
report, rather than being fragmented and scattered throughout
the report. If a point needs to be re-emphasized, a cross-
reference to the appropriate portion of the earlier discussion
is generally preferable to restating the matter. Bear in mind
that the purpose of the report is to present, in a clear and
usable fashion, material that is essential to understanding the
legislative measure.
For long, controversial, and complex legislation, one may
need to add sections to the report in addition to the sections
discussed previously in this guide in order to keep it well
organized and present the essential material. For example, if a
bill was the subject of prolonged and unusual consideration
before the Committee, this activity may be described in a
concise fashion under the heading ``Committee Consideration''.
Similarly, if the bill was significantly altered by numerous
amendments in the mark-up, the most significant amendments
might be explained under the heading ``Committee Amendments''.
Other, less significant, amendments may be dispensed with by
including a notation that the Committee also adopted several
minor, technical, or conforming amendments.
If a bill is unusually important or significant, the
section on ``Background and Needs'' may be expanded to include
a longer, well-organized discussion of the need for the
legislation. Finally, if a bill is particularly controversial,
the report may contain a section entitled ``Major Issues''
which briefly discusses the most important issues in the
measure.
When you begin to enlarge sections or add new sections to a
report, it may be necessary to rearrange the order of the
sections. This is permissible if the final report is easy to
read and organized in a logical fashion. You should be certain,
however, that the reader is given a proper introduction at the
beginning of the report. This means there should be a simple,
brief, and clear statement of the major thrust of the
legislation, the need for the legislation, and the major
provisions of the legislation before the reader reaches any
long or detailed discussions.
SHORT MEASURE EXAMPLE
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 886, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Corps Confirmation Correction
Legislation, is to ratify the otherwise legal appointments and
promotions in the commissioned corps of NOAA that failed to be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent as required
by law.
Background and Needs
The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the seven uniformed
services of the United States (the others are the four
Department of Defense services, the Coast Guard, and the Public
Health Service). The NOAA Corps is comprised of slightly over
250 commissioned officers and operates a wide variety of
specialized aircraft and ships used to conduct NOAA's
environmental and scientific missions. Its commissioned
officers provide NOAA with an important blend of operational,
management, and technical skills that support the agency's
science and surveying programs at sea, in the air, and ashore.
Corps officers operate and manage NOAA's ships and aircraft as
well as serve in the agency's research laboratories and program
offices throughout the nation and in remote locations around
the world.
The NOAA Corps officer appointments and promotions are
similar to the other uniformed services and, under section 226
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 3026) and its
antecedent, require nomination by the President and must be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.
Historically, the Commerce Committee has considered NOAA
promotions, along with routine Coast Guard officer promotions,
during Full Committee Executive Sessions.
It recently came to the Committee's attention that NOAA has
failed since October 1, 1999, to submit any of its NOAA Corps
officer appointments and promotions to the President for
nomination and subsequently to the Senate for its advice and
consent. Since then, the NOAA Corps has made approximately 251
appointments and promotions, involving approximately 196
officers. An ongoing Department of Commerce investigation
indicates these procedural problems may have existed prior to
October 1, 1999, and additional officers' appointments and
promotions may also be affected. These revelations raise
serious questions concerning the validity of these appointments
and promotions that could affect each individual officer's pay,
entitlements, job status, and the ability to carry out the
officer's official actions.
To address this serious situation, the legislation is
designed to provide a framework for retroactive appointments
and promotions for the affected officers in a manner that will
protect the professional and financial aspects of their
positions, and that will ensure that all past actions taken in
the line of duty by such officers after their appointments and/
or promotions are considered to have been official actions. The
bill states that all actions performed in the line of duty by
these NOAA corps officers are ratified and approved. In
addition, the legislation states that all Federal agency
actions (with respect to pay, benefits, and retirement) in
relation to an unconfirmed NOAA corps officer shall be
considered legally binding.
The bill provides that the President, acting alone, can
make appointments and promotions for up to 180 days to allow
these officers to maintain their status until the full Senate
gives its advice and consent for these appointments and
promotions going forward. Once this bill is enacted into law,
the Administration is expected to submit the list of these
officers to the Senate for its advice and consent.
Legislative History
S. 886 was introduced on April 10, 2003, by Senators
McCain, Hollings, Snowe, and Kerry, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On May 1,
2003, the bill was considered by the Committee in an open
executive session. The Committee, without objection, ordered S.
886 reported without amendments.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
[Omitted in this example]
Regulatory Impact Statement
Because S. 886 does not create any new programs, the
legislation would have no additional regulatory impact, and
will result in no additional reporting requirements. The
legislation would have no further effect on the number or types
of individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals,
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses.
Section-by-Section Analysis \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This example could be further shortened by omitting the
Section-by-Section Analysis, as it essentially repeats the statement of
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. Ratification of certain NOAA appointments, promotions, and
actions.
This section would ratify otherwise legal appointments and
promotions in the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration that failed to be submitted to
the Senate for its advice and consent as required by law.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE EXAMPLE
Background and Needs
Since the inception of the Commission, Congress has been
concerned with indecent and obscene material broadcast over the
airwaves. Both the Radio Act of 1927 and The Communications Act
of 1934 (the Act) vested the agency with the authority to
regulate obscene, indecent, and profane material. In 1948,
Congress codified section 1464 in the criminal code, which
states, ``Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane
language by means of radio communication shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.''
The FCC is charged with enforcing section 1464 and has
promulgated rules prohibiting radio and television stations
from broadcasting indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
For those who violate the rules, the FCC may issue warnings,
impose monetary fines (up to $27,500 for each violation or up
to $275,000 for a continuing violation for a broadcast station
licensees and $11,000 for non-licensees who have received a
prior warning, i.e. performers), or revoke licenses for the
airing of indecent material.
The increase in the number of indecency complaints filed at
the Commission demonstrates the public's concern over the
recent surge in indecent content on radio and television. The
number of complaints increased from 111 in 2000 to 2,240,350 in
2003. The number of complaints filed in 2004 is on pace to
exceed the number filed in 2003.
A study conducted by the Parents Television Council (PTC),
and published in its report titled, ``The Blue Tube: Foul
Language on Prime Time Network TV,'' concluded that ``foul
language during the Family Hour [8 p.m. to 9 p.m.] increased by
94.8 percent between 1998 and 2002.'' The pervasiveness of
indecent material has fueled competition among broadcasters to
push the envelope for more and more questionable content. As
described in the PTC report: ``Once the initial taboo is broken
and the shock value wears off, more and more curse words fall
into the category of `acceptable' language, and TV must try to
up the ante by introducing new words to prime time TV's obscene
lexicon.''
Due to the increase in complaints, the Commission has
indicated recently a willingness to toughen its enforcement
against the broadcasting of indecent and obscene material.
However, besides a paltry 10 percent increase for inflation,
these statutory limits on fines have not been increased since
1991. As a result, the current statutory limits on fines, even
if they are enforced more rigorously, appear to be a mere cost
of doing business rather than a deterrent to broadcasting
obscene, indecent, or profane material. S. 2056 was introduced
to enhance the FCC's enforcement capability by increasing these
fines.
While the FCC has rules, although deficient, governing the
broadcasting of indecent programming, it has not adopted
similar regulations to protect children from exposure to
violent programming on television. The Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (1996 Act) included a provision requiring all
television sets manufactured after January 1, 2000, to contain
a ``V-Chip,'' a feature that provides parents with the ability
to block the display of certain programming based on a
program's rating. An April 2000 survey conducted by the Kaiser
Family Foundation, found that only 9 percent of parents of
children ages 2-17 had a television with a V-Chip, only 3
percent of all parents had ever used the V-Chip to block
programming, and 39 percent of parents surveyed had never heard
of the V-Chip.
The American Psychological Association (APA) reports that
by the time a child who watches 2 to 4 hours of television
daily leaves elementary school, he or she will witness at least
8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of
violence on television. Psychological research has also shown
that children who watch violence on television may become less
sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, may be more
fearful of the world around them, and may be more likely to
behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.
I. INDECENT PROGRAMMING ON RADIO AND TELEVISION
A. INDECENCY REGULATION
The FCC defines ``indecent speech'' as ``language or
material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms
patently offensive as measured by contemporary community
standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory
activities or organs.'' In applying the ``community standards''
criterion, the FCC has stated, ``the determination as to
whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a
local one and does not encompass any particular geographic
area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast
viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual
complainant.'' \1\ Additionally, to be found indecent the
material must be broadcast at a time of day when children are
likely to be in the audience--between the hours of 6 a.m. and
10 p.m.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18
U.S.C. 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency,
Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 7999 (2001).
\2\ Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654, (D.C.
Cir. 1995), herein after ACT IV.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court decision establishing the judicial
foundation for the FCC's indecency enforcement authority, is
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). In Pacifica,
the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling finding indecent, but
not obscene, a twelve-minute routine by comedian George Carlin.
Upholding the FCC's actions, the Supreme Court emphasized the
fact that the broadcast media pervades society and that once
unexpected program content is heard, the damage is done: ``To
say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio
when he hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy
for an assault is to run away after the first blow.''
Additionally, the Court noted that ``broadcasting is uniquely
accessible to children, even those too young to read,'' and
that the government's interest in the well-being of its youth
and in supporting parental control in the household justified
regulation. As a result, the Court found that under these
circumstances, the FCC could sanction those who broadcast
indecent--even if not obscene--language.
B. COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Some critics argue that the current process is largely
ineffective and puts too many burdens on complainants. In
particular, these critics note that in 2003 the FCC received
about 240,000 complaints concerning approximately 375 radio and
television programs, and issued a total of 3 fines. The
indecency complaint process also has been criticized for
allowing complaints to languish, which has in some cases
resulted in the FCC being forced to dismiss a complaint because
the statute of limitations has run. Since 2000, the number of
indecency complaints has risen to a record high.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No. of
No. of programs complaints No. of
Year complaints reflected denied or complaints
received in such dismissed pending at
complaints by year-end year-end
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004........................................................ 530,885 23 ........... ...........
2003........................................................ 2,240,350 318 368 239,982
2002........................................................ 13,922 345 13,258 664
2001........................................................ 346 152 242 104
2000........................................................ 111 101 37 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until 2003, the highest indecency fine the FCC had imposed
was $35,000 to WQAM (Miami, FL) for a five-day indecent
broadcast. In 1995, the FCC issued Notices of Apparent
Liability (NAL) of $400,000, $500,000, and $600,000 against
Infinity Broadcasting Corporation, (Infinity, a unit of Viacom,
Inc.) involving ``The Howard Stern Show,'' but the forfeitures
were never actually recorded because the company entered into a
settlement agreement instead for more than $1.7 million.
Recently, the Commission has imposed the statutory maximum
fine of $27,500 in numerous instances.
In April 2003, the FCC proposed the
statutory maximum fine of $27,500 against Infinity for
the broadcast of explicit and graphic sexual
references, including references to anal and oral sex,
as well as explicit and graphic references to sexual
practices that involve excretory activities. In
addition, the FCC stated that given the egregiousness
of this violation, additional serious violations by
Infinity might lead to the initiation of a license
revocation proceeding. While Infinity challenged the
proposed fine, the FCC rejected this challenge and
issued a forfeiture order on December 8, 2003.
In October 2003, Infinity was fined $357,500
for airing a description of a couple allegedly having
sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. The
broadcast was part of a contest among five couples who
were challenged by station personnel to have sex in
several places specified by the station, including St.
Patrick's Cathedral. The FCC said the forfeiture was
the largest amount permitted by the Act based on the
legal facts of the case, and therefore fined the
thirteen Infinity stations that aired the program
$27,500 each.
In October 2003, the FCC issued a $55,000
forfeiture against AM/FM Radio Licensees, which is
controlled by Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (Clear
Channel), for airing a program in which the hosts
questioned two high school girls about the sex lives of
students and school administrators.
In January 2004, the FCC issued its largest
forfeiture ever for $755,000 against Clear Channel for
airing indecent material in connection with the ``Bubba
the Love Sponge'' program. The forfeiture assessed the
statutory maximum of $27,500 to each of the 26 Clear
Channel stations that aired the indecent material, and
the base amount of $10,000 each for four public file
violations ($40,000).
During the 2004 Super Bowl, Janet Jackson's
breast was exposed during her halftime duet with Justin
Timberlake. Viacom's CBS television network, which
aired the show, and Viacom's MTV, which produced the
halftime show, apologized for what they describe as an
``unscripted moment.'' CBS estimates that some 140
million Americans tuned into the game, which would make
it the most-watched Super Bowl in history. FCC Chairman
Michael C. Powell issued a statement the following
morning, calling the incident a ``classless, crass and
deplorable stunt'' and instructed the Commission to
open an immediate investigation on its own motion. The
FCC has received more than 500,000 complaints about the
Super Bowl halftime show. Chairman Powell's probe could
result in fines against CBS's 20 owned and operated
stations and the more than 200 affiliate stations that
aired the broadcast. If the Commission levies the
maximum $27,500 fine, CBS affiliates would have to pay
$5.5 million, about the cost of two Super Bowl ads,
while CBS, through its owned stations, would be fined
approximately $550,000.
Even with the FCC's recent actions on indecency, many
critics have suggested that the fines are merely the ``cost of
doing business'' for these large companies. Commissioner
Michael J. Copps has declared in a recent statement:
. . . a mere $27,500 fine for each incident . . .
such a fine will be easily absorbed as a ``cost of
doing business'' and fails to send a message that the
Commission is serious about enforcing the nation's
indecency laws. ``Cost of doing business'' fines are
never going to stop the media's slide to the bottom.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Clear Channel
Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael
J. Copps, Dissenting, 19 FCC Rcd 1768, (rel. Jan. 27, 2004).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following chart compares the Commission's current fines
to the various companies' revenues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002: Amount of 2003: Amount of
Station owner fines (number of Company revenue fines (number of Company revenues
fines) for 2002 fines) for 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel........................... $0 $8,093,000,000 $1,057,500 $8,042,000,000
Infinity................................ 21,000 24,600,000,000 412,500 26,600,000,000
Entercom................................ 14,000 391,300,000 0 401,100,000
Emmis................................... 28,000 533,800,000 0 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FCC has moved to assess the maximum fine in
certain cases, the Commission has not utilized its authority to
issue fines for violations on a per utterance basis, to
initiate license revocations, or to further develop a
consistent and aggressive approach to combating indecency. In
October, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau determined that rock star
Bono's use of the ``F'' word on a live national broadcast was
not indecent because it did not appeal to the ``prurient
interest'' since the term was used as an adjective. Shortly
thereafter, the House of Representatives and Senate both passed
forth resolutions expressing a sense that there is no support
for, ``the lowering of standards or weakening of rules by the
FCC prohibiting obscene and indecent broadcasts to allow
network or other communications to use language that is
indecent or vulgar'' and requested that the FCC Commissioners
reverse the Enforcement Bureau's decision.\4\ On March, 3,
2004, the FCC reversed the Enforcement Bureau's decision
stating that any use of the ``F'' word violates the FCC's
indecency rules.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See H. Res. 482 and H. Res. 500, and S. Res. 283 (2003).
\5\ Complaints of various broadcast licensee r.e. airing of
``Golden Globe Awards'' Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 04-
43.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C. POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP TO MEDIA OWNERSHIP
The number of indecency complaints has risen during a
period when the number of owners of media outlets has
decreased. As a result, the Committee has become concerned that
there may be a possible connection between the increased
consolidation of owners in the media industry and the increased
number of complaints on indecent programming. For example,
Clear Channel, which was assessed the largest fine ever issued
by the FCC, went from owning 512 stations in 1999 to over 1,200
stations in 2004. Other radio station group owners also have
increased their ownership holdings over the same period.
Infinity went from owning 163 stations in 1999 to owning 180 in
2004; Citadel went from 108 stations in 1999 to 213 stations in
2004; Cummlus Media, Inc. went from owning 232 in 1999 to 301
in 2004; and Entercom Communications Corporation went from
owning 42 in 1999 to 104 in 2004.
Consumers Union and PTC have testified before the Committee
on the relationship between increased media consolidation and a
coarsening of content on the airwaves. Gene Kimmelman of
Consumers Union wrote to the Committee in a letter dated March
8, 2004, ``Realistic media ownership rules must be in place to
lessen the influence of massive corporations on local broadcast
content, as well as to ensure public debate in the local media,
including newspapers.'' \6\ At a July 23, 2003, hearing, Brent
Bozell of PTC testified, ``There are many reasons not to give
these six mega-corporations even more control of our airwaves,
one of them being their utter lack of attentiveness to
community standards.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See www.consumerunion.org/pub/core--telecom--and--utilities/
000901.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
II. VIOLENT PROGRAMMING ON TELEVISION
A. IMPACT OF MEDIA VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
The impact of media violence on children has been studied
since motion pictures were created during the 1920s. The
primary concern at that time was whether certain scenes
containing sexual or violent content undermined moral
standards. A few years later, a study suggested that there was
a link between delinquency-prone youngsters and motion
pictures. Although members of the broadcast industry and
specialists in human deviant behavior criticized these
conclusions, it elevated the issue to one of public importance.
As television grew in the 1950s, it became the primary
focus of media violence researchers. Between the late 1950s and
early 1960s, several studies suggested a strong link between
television violence and youth aggression. In 1969, the Surgeon
General was petitioned by Senator John Pastore, the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on Commerce, to conduct a study on
television and social behavior. The study, published in 1972,
found that: (1) television content is heavily saturated with
violence; (2) children and adults are watching more television;
and (3) there is some evidence that, on balance, viewing
violent television entertainment increases the likelihood of
aggressive behavior.
The Surgeon General's report heightened concern over the
issue and led to more studies, including a study released in
1975 by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). The
study suggested that television violence was having a deforming
effect on children, resulting in abnormal child development,
and increasing levels of physical aggressiveness. In response,
the America Medical Association (AMA) passed a resolution
declaring that television violence threatened the welfare of
young Americans.
Since the release of the Surgeon General's report and the
JAMA study, a number of major medical and public health
organizations have studied and affirmed the link between
violent programming and violent behavior in children. In 1982,
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) produced a
report entitled ``Television and Behavior: Ten Years of
Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties,''
concluding that TV violence affects all children, not just
those predisposed to aggression. Specifically, the report
reaffirmed the conclusions of earlier studies:
After 10 more years of research, the consensus among
most of the research community is that violence on
television does lead to aggressive behavior by children
and teenagers who watch the programs. This conclusion
is based on laboratory experiments and on field
studies. Not all children become aggressive, of course,
but the correlations between violence and aggression
are positive. In magnitude, television violence is as
strongly correlated with aggressive behavior as any
other behavioral variable that has been measured. The
research question has moved from asking whether or not
there is an effect to seeking explanations for the
effect.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Institute of Mental Health, Television and Behavior:
Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties
(David Pearl et al. eds., 1982) p.6.
In 1992, Dr. Brandon Centerwall, a Professor of
Epidemiology at the University of Washington, conducted a study
on the homicide rates in South Africa, Canada, and the United
States in relation to the introduction of television. In all
three countries, Dr. Centerwall found that the homicide rate
doubled about 10 or 15 years after the introduction of
television. According to Dr. Centerwall, the lag time in each
country reflects the fact that television exerts its behavior-
modifying effects primarily on children, whereas violent
activity is primarily an adult activity. Dr. Centerwall
concludes that ``long-term childhood exposure to television is
a causal factor behind approximately one-half of the homicides
committed in the United States.'' This report found that
extensive exposure to television violence could lead to chronic
effects extending into later adolescence and adulthood.
In June 2000, representatives from 6 of the nation's top
public health organizations, including the Academy of
Pediatrics, the APA, and the AMA, issued a joint statement
noting that:
Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the
Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of
Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by
leading figures within our medical and public health
organizations--our own members--point overwhelmingly to
a causal connection between media violence and
aggressive behavior in some children. The conclusion of
the public health community, based on over 30 years of
research, is that viewing entertainment violence can
lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and
behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are
measurable and long lasting. Moreover, prolonged
viewing of media violence can lead to emotional
desensitization toward violence in real life.
This conclusion has been further supported by subsequent
research. In March 2003, Dr. Rowell Huesmann and Dr. Leonard
Eron reviewed the long-term relationship between viewing media
violence in childhood and young-adult aggressive behavior. The
doctors found that ``both males and females from all social
strata and all levels of initial aggressiveness are placed at
increased risk for the development of adult aggressive and
violent behavior when they viewed a high and steady diet of
violent television shows in early childhood.'' \8\ This
longitudinal study was started in the 1960s and followed a
group of 875 children in upstate New York, examining them at
ages 8, 19, and 30.\9\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See L/ Rowell Huesmann et al., Longitudinal Relations Between
Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent
Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992, Development Psychology, 39
(2003): 201-221.
\9\ See L. Rowell Huesmann et al., Stability of Aggression Over
Time and Generations, Developmental Psychology 20 (1984): 1,120-1,134.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in March 2003, the Committee heard testimony from
Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and
Children's Health at the Children's Hospital of Boston,
concerning neurobiological research and the impact of media
violence on children. At that hearing, Dr. Rich testified that
the correlation between violent media and aggressive behavior:
. . . is stronger than that of calcium intake and
bone mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, condom non-use
and sexually acquired HIV, and environmental tobacco
smoke and lung cancer, all associations that clinicians
accept as fact, and on which preventive medicine is
based without question.
Given this evidence about the correlation between exposure
to violent programming and violent behavior, many organizations
have become increasingly alarmed by the increased prevalence of
violent programming on broadcast, cable, and satellite
television. As noted earlier, the APA estimates that a typical
child will watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence
before finishing elementary school. Similarly, in 1998, a $3.5
million study, commissioned by the National Cable Television
Association (NCTA) and conducted by a panel of leading
educators and social scientists (The National Television
Violence Report) indicated that from 1994 to 1997 the level of
television violence was relatively constant, with about 60
percent of programming containing violent content, averaging
about 6 violent acts per hour. During prime time viewing hours,
however, the study found that the number of programs with
violence increased by 14 percent on the Big Four networks, by 7
percent on independent broadcast stations, and by 10 percent on
basic cable channels.
Moreover, the manner in which violence is portrayed on
television may be a cause for concern. For example, the NCTA
study reported that:
Much of TV violence is still glamorized . . . Most
violence on television continues to be sanitized . . .
Less than 20 percent of violent programs portray the
long-term damage of violence to the victim's family,
friends, and community . . . Much of the serious
physical aggression on television is still trivialized
. . . Very few programs emphasize an anti-violence
theme.
In 2003, the PTC conducted a study on television violence
that was published in a report entitled, ``TV Bloodbath:
Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV'', which surveyed
programming shown during the 1998, 2000, and 2002 November
sweeps. The report found that the prevalence of violent
programming increased in every time slot between 1998 and 2002,
and that in 2002 depictions of violence were 41 percent more
frequent during the 8 p.m. hour and 134.4 percent more frequent
during the 9 p.m. hour than in 1998.
B. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Congress has expressed concern about the amount of violence
on television since the 1950s. Studies conducted in the 1950s
showed that violent crime increased significantly early in that
decade, and some researchers believed that the spread of
television was partly to blame. In response, Congress held
hearings concerning violence in radio and television and its
impact on children in 1952 and 1954. In 1956, one of the first
studies of television violence reported that 4 year-olds who
watched the ``Woody Woodpecker'' cartoon were more likely to
display aggressive behavior than children who watched the
``Little Red Hen.'' After the broadcast industry pledged to
regulate itself and after the FCC testified against regulatory
action, Congress chose not to act.
In the early 1960s, as a follow up to the earlier Senate
hearings, President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert
Kennedy placed significant pressure on the television networks
to reduce violent content in their programming. However, the
pressure yielded few results. The urban riots of the 1960s
again raised concern about the link between television violence
and violent behavior. In response to public concern, President
Lyndon B. Johnson established the National Commission on the
Causes and Prevention of Violence. The Commission's Mass Media
Task Force looked at the impact of violence on television and
concluded that television violence (1) has a negative impact on
behavior; (2) encourages subsequent violent behavior; and (3)
``fosters moral and social values about violence in daily life
which are unacceptable in a civilized society.'' \10\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence, Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, December 1969, p. 199.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1969, Senator John Pastore petitioned the Surgeon
General to investigate the effects of TV violence. In 1972,
Surgeon General Jessie Steinfeld released a study demonstrating
a correlation between television violence and violent and
aggressive behavior and called for congressional action.\11\
The 5 volume report concluded that there is a causal
relationship between TV violence and aggressive behavior, but
primarily on children presupposed to aggressive behavior.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, The
Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and
Social Behavior, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised
Violence. Report to the Surgeon General, Washington, D.C., United
States Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 279.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Several more hearings were held after the release of the
Surgeon General's report in the 1970s. In 1975, a report by the
JAMA suggested that television violence was having a deforming
effect on children, resulting in abnormal child development,
and increasing levels of physical aggressiveness. In response,
the AMA passed a resolution declaring television violence to be
a threat to the welfare of young Americans. Despite the
findings, little regulatory or congressional action was taken.
However, continued concerns prompted Congress to request the
FCC to study possible solutions.
On February 20, 1975, the FCC issued its ``Report on the
Broadcast of Violent and Obscene Material.'' The report
recommended statutory clarification regarding the Commission's
authority to prohibit certain broadcasts of obscene and
indecent materials. However, with regard to the issue of
television violence, the FCC did not recommend any
congressional action because the industry had recently adopted
a voluntary family viewing policy as part of a industry code of
conduct. The policy provided that ``entertainment programming
inappropriate for viewing by a general family audience should
not be broadcast during the first hour of network entertainment
programming in prime time and in the immediately preceding
hour.'' In 1982, the Department of Justice challenged the code
on antitrust grounds wholly unrelated to the family viewing
policy. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
ultimately eliminated code and with it went the family viewing
policy.
During the 101st Congress, Senator Paul Simon (D--IL)
introduced the Television Program Improvement Act. That
legislation granted an antitrust exemption to permit television
industry representatives to meet, consider, and jointly agree
upon implementing voluntary standards that would lead to a
reduction in television violence. Subsequent to the bill's
enactment, industry discussions led to the release in December
1992 of joint standards regarding the broadcasting of excessive
television violence. In June 1993, the networks adopted a
policy to warn viewers about programs that might contain
excessive violence. That policy required the following
statement to be transmitted before and during the broadcasting
of violent programs: ``Due to some violent content, parental
discretion is advised.''
Despite these efforts by the industry, many in Congress
believed the voluntary standards did not adequately address the
concerns over television violence. In October 1993, the
Committee held a hearing on television violence to consider a
variety of legislative proposals. Attorney General Janet Reno
testified that all the legislation pending before the Committee
at that time, including S. 1383 (103rd Congress), the
Children's Protection From Violent Programming Act of 1993
(Hollings-Inouye), would be constitutional. The major broadcast
networks and other industry representatives argued that the
amount of violent programming had declined and requested more
time to implement proposed warning labels before Congress
considered legislation. No further action was taken in the
103rd Congress.
On July 11, 1995, the Committee held a hearing on
television violence to consider pending measures, including S.
470 (104th Congress), introduced by Senator Hollings and known
as the ``safe harbor legislation''. S. 470 was identical to S.
1383. The Committee subsequently reported S. 470 without
amendment on August 10, 1995 by a recorded vote of 16 to 1,
with two Senators not voting. Similar legislation was reported
out of Committee in the 105th Congress by a vote of 19 to 1 and
in the 106th Congress by a vote of 17 to 1, with one Senator
voting present.
As discussed earlier, part of the 1996 Act, Congress
adopted legislation which required television manufacturers to
include a device, dubbed the V-Chip for violence, capable of
blocking programming with certain ratings. In conjunction with
the V-Chip, the 1996 Act encouraged the video programming
industry to ``establish voluntary rules for rating video
programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent
material about which parents should be informed before it is
displayed to children,'' and to broadcast voluntarily signals
containing these ratings.
On February 29, 1996, all segments of the television
industry created the ``TV Ratings Implementation Group'' headed
by Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack
Valenti. The group submitted its voluntary age-based ratings
proposal to the FCC on January 17, 1997. The Implementation
Group included the following industry groups: members from the
broadcast networks; affiliated, independent, and public
television stations; cable programmers; producers and
distributors of cable programming; entertainment companies;
movie studios; and members of the guilds representing writers,
directors, producers, and actors.
These age-based ratings came under intense and immediate
criticism because they failed to identify specific content that
was violent, sexual in nature, or contained mature dialogue.
Thus, the ratings denied parents the ability to block
individual programs based on objections to the specific content
of the programs. In response to these criticisms, most of the
television industry agreed to a ``revised ratings system''
which added designators indicating whether a program received a
particular rating because of sex (S), violence (V), language
(L), or suggestive dialogue (D). A designator for fantasy
violence (FV) was added for children's programming in the TV-Y7
category. This revised ratings system was approved by an FCC
order on March 12, 1998. In that same order, the FCC required
manufacturers to include V-Chip technology to block
objectionable programming in at least half of televisions 13
inches or larger by July 1, 1999, and in the remaining half by
January 1, 2000.
In 1998, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report
(``An Assessment of the Television Industry's Use of V-Chip
Ratings'') identifying two major implementation problems with
the ratings system: (1) program producers or the networks were
making the decisions on what ratings to use, and (2) NBC and
Black Entertainment Television (BET) were not providing V-Chip
compatible content ratings. Specifically, the report found that
79 percent of shows containing violence did not receive a ``V''
content descriptor. According to the Kaiser study, ``the bottom
line for parents who want to use the V-Chip ratings to guide
their children's viewing is clear: Parents cannot rely on the
content descriptors, as currently employed, to block all shows
containing adult language, violence or sexual content.'' In
addition, with respect to children's programming, the failure
to use the ``V'' descriptor and the rare use of the ``FV''
descriptor led the report to conclude that ``there is no
effective way for parents to block out all children's shows
containing violence.''
In addition to concerns about the application of the
ratings system, national surveys conducted by the Kaiser Family
Foundation after the ratings system was implemented show that
an overwhelming majority of parents do not know the meaning of
the content ratings. For example, a survey conducted by the
Kaiser Family Foundation in 1999 found that only 3 percent of
parents knew that the rating ``FV'' stood for ``fantasy
violence'' and 2 percent knew that ``D'' stood for ``suggestive
dialog.'' \12\ An update released in 2001 showed that 14
percent of parents knew the meaning of ``FV'' and 5 percent
knew the meaning of ``D.'' \13\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Kaiser Family Foundation, How Parents feel (and what they
know) about tv, the v-chip, and the tv ratings system, (1999).
\13\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents and the V-Chip 2001: A
Kaiser Family Foundations Survey, (2001).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in March 2004, the Ad Council released the result
of its nationwide survey of parents with children aged 2 to 17,
which found that while most parents are concerned about age-
appropriate television content, less than 10 percent of all
parents are using the V-Chip. Furthermore, the survey found
that approximately 80 percent of parents that own a television
set with a V-Chip are unaware that their television has the
technology.
C. SAFE HARBOR REGULATION
Some have questioned whether limiting the distribution of
violent programming to certain hours of the day would be
consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Attorney General Janet Reno responded to some of these
questions when she testified in October 1993 that the safe
harbor approach in S. 1383 and the other bills before the
Committee at that time were constitutional.\14\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Testimony of Attorney General Janet Reno, Hearing on S. 1383,
the Children's Protection from Violent Programming Act of 1993, et al.,
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
October 20, 1993, p. 30, 42.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While no court has ruled specifically on the
constitutionality of the approach taken by title II of S. 2056,
there appear to be many lines of decisions that would support
the constitutionality of the safe harbor approach to television
violence. This legislation could fall within the ambit of the
clear and present danger exception, the limitations on
commercial speech and speech harmful to children, the strict
scrutiny test, and a regulation of time, place, and manner. The
following discussion focuses on the recent opinions concerning
broadcast indecency and the strict scrutiny test as examples of
the lines of analysis that appear to support the
constitutionality of the safe harbor approach. This discussion
is not exhaustive, and there may well be arguments to justify
the legislation which do not appear below.
1. SAFE HARBOR UNDER AN ACT IV CASE ANALYSIS
The Court of Appeals decision in ACT IV \15\ to uphold the
safe harbor for broadcast indecency provides, perhaps, the best
indication that the courts would uphold the safe harbor
approach for television violence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 58 F. 3rd 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, Congress enacted legislation sponsored by Senator
Robert Byrd to prohibit the broadcast of indecent programming
during certain hours of the day. The Byrd amendment allowed
indecent broadcasts between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.;
except for public broadcast stations that would go off the air
at midnight or before were permitted to air indecent broadcasts
as early as 10 p.m.\16\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Congress had already prohibited obscene and indecent
broadcasts many years earlier. Section 1464 of title 18, United States
Code, prohibits the broadcast of any obscene, indecent, or profane
language by means of radio communication. This language was enacted
first in the Radio Act of 1927, again as part of section 326 of the
Communications Act of 1934, and was moved into title 18 in 1948.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, sitting en banc, upheld the
constitutionality of the Byrd amendment in ACT IV. The court
found, in a seven to four opinion, that the safe harbor
approach, also called ``channeling,'' satisfied the two-part
``strict scrutiny'' test.\17\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ While the court upheld the safe harbor approach implemented
by the Byrd amendment, it found that the different treatment of certain
public broadcast stations was unjustified. The court thus directed the
FCC to modify its rules to apply a consistent safe harbor of 6 a.m. to
10 p.m. for all broadcast stations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The court found that the government met the first prong of
the test by establishing that the government had a ``compelling
governmental interest'' in protecting children from the harm
caused by indecency. The court found two compelling
governmental interests, and left open the possibility of a
third.\18\ First, the court found that ``the Government has a
compelling interest in supporting parental supervision of what
children see and hear on the public airwaves.'' \19\ The court
cited Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 638, for the
proposition that government has a ``fundamental interest in
helping parents exercise their `primary responsibility for
[their] children's well-being' with `laws designed to aid [in
the] discharge of that responsibility.'' \20\ Second, the court
found that ``the Government's own interest in the well-being of
minors provides an independent justification for the regulation
of broadcast indecency.'' It quoted the Supreme Court again in
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (1982) for the
proposition that ``. . . a State's interest in safeguarding the
physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the
healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity
as citizens. Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed
at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth
even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of
constitutionally protected rights.'' \21\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The court found it unnecessary to address the FCC's contention
that there is also a compelling governmental interest in protecting the
home against intrusion by offensive broadcasts. ACT IV, 660-661.
\19\ Ibid.
\20\ Ibid.
\21\ Ibid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The court found that the legislation met the second prong
of the test because it uses the ``least restrictive means'' to
accomplish that governmental interest. Here, the court noted
that, in choosing the hours during which indecency would be
banned, the government must balance the interests of protecting
children with the interests of adults. ``The question, then, is
what period will serve the compelling governmental interests
without unduly infringing on the adult population's right to
see and hear indecent material.'' \22\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid., 665.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the evidence compiled by the FCC, the court
upheld the determination that a ban on indecent programming
during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. satisfied the
balance and was the least restrictive means. The court noted
that, to the extent that such a ban affected the rights of
adults to hear such programming, ``adults have alternative
means of satisfying their interest in indecent material at
other hours in ways that pose no risk to minors [such as
renting videotapes, computer services, audio tapes, etc.].''
\23\ The court stated further that, ``[a]lthough the
restrictions burden the rights of many adults, it seems
entirely appropriate that the marginal convenience of some
adults be made to yield to the imperative needs of the young.''
\24\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid., 666.
\24\ Ibid., 667.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasoning of the court in ACT IV appears to apply
equally to title II of S. 2056. As with indecency, the
government has a compelling interest in protecting the moral
and psychological well-being of children against the harm of
viewing television violence. Also as with indecency,
restricting television violence to certain hours of the day
balances the rights of adults to watch violent programming with
the interests of protecting children. Adults have other ways of
obtaining access to violent programming just as they have other
ways of obtaining indecent materials. Thus, the decision
upholding the safe harbor for indecency appears to provide
strong support for finding a safe harbor for violence to be
constitutional.
2. THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST
The strict scrutiny test, which was used in the ACT IV
case, is the most stringent test used to analyze the
constitutionality of a First Amendment challenge. The following
discussion assesses the violence safe harbor approach under
strict scrutiny, not because it is certain that this test will
apply, but because, if the violence safe harbor approach passes
the strict scrutiny test, it certainly would pass any lesser
standard of review. Regulation will pass the strict scrutiny
test if the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet a
compelling governmental interest.
Congress has developed a long and detailed record to
justify the violence safe harbor approach. Congress has held
hearings to explore various approaches to television violence
in every decade since the 1950s. The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation alone has held 25
hearings over the past 3 decades on this topic, including at
least 5 hearings specifically on the safe harbor approach. The
Committee has laid extensive groundwork for considering the
least restrictive means of protecting children from violence on
television. By contrast, the Byrd amendment, the legislation at
issue in the ACT IV case, was adopted on the Senate floor
without any Committee hearings.
a. Compelling Governmental Interest
The government has several compelling interests in
protecting children from the harmful effects of viewing
violence which are discussed below: an interest in protecting
children from harm, an interest in protecting society in
general, an interest in helping parents raise their children,
and an interest in the privacy of the home. Each of these are
discussed below.
Harm to children.--Government has a compelling
interest in protecting children from the harm caused by
television violence. As several witnesses have
testified before the Committee and numerous studies
have concluded, children's viewing of violence on
television encourages violent and anti-social behavior,
either as children or later as adults. These studies
have demonstrated a causal connection between viewing
violence and violent behavior.\25\ These studies have
included field studies of the effect of television on
persons in real life and laboratory studies. While the
study in 1972 by the Surgeon General concluded that
there was a causal relationship between viewing
violence and behavior primarily among those children
predisposed to violence, more recent research by NIMH
and others demonstrates that violent television
programming affects almost all children. Over 35 years
of laboratory and real-life studies provide evidence
that televised violence is a cause of aggression among
children, both contemporaneously, and over time.
Television violence affects youngsters of all ages,
both genders, at all socio-economic levels, and at all
levels of intelligence. The effect is not limited to
children who are already disposed to being aggressive,
and it is not restricted to the United States.\26\
While it is perhaps axiomatic that children who become
violent because of television suffer harm, it is worth
noting that such children suffer harm in many ways. For
example, children exposed to excessive violence can
become anti-social, distant from others, and
unproductive members of society, especially if their
actions arouse fear in other people. They can suffer
from imprisonment or other forms of criminal punishment
if their violence leads to illegal behavior. Violent
behavior may not be the only harm caused by viewing
violent television. According to the APA, viewing
violence can cause fearfulness, desensitization, or an
increased appetite for more violence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Among these are studies conducted by the American Medical
Association, the American Psychological Association, the National
Institute of Mental Health, the Center for Disease Control, and
numerous studies by individual researchers.
\26\ Written Testimony of Dr. Leonard Eron, Professor of Psychology
and Senior Research Scientist, Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, before the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, Communications Subcommittee, May 18, 1999.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harm of Society.--A related compelling governmental
interest is the need to protect society as a whole from
the harmful results of television-induced violent
behavior. A child who views excessive amounts of
television violence is not the only person who suffers
harm. In his testimony in 1999, Dr. Eron testified that
violent programming can adversely affect society
because children who watch excessive amounts of
television when they are young are more ``prone to be
convicted for more serious crimes by age 30; more
aggressive while under the influence of alcohol; and,
harsher in the punishment they administered to their
own children.'' \27\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Written Testimony of Dr. Eron before the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Communications Subcommittee, July
12, 1995, p. 2. Dr. Eron further warns that ``. . . like secondary
smoke effects, . . . don't think that just because you have protected
your child from the effects of television violence that your child is
not affected. You and your child might be the victims of violence
perpetrated by someone who as a youngster, did learn the motivation for
and the techniques of violence from television.'' Ibid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Helping parents supervise their children.--In
addition to the governmental interests in protecting
children and society from harm, the courts have also
recognized a compelling governmental interest in
helping parents supervise what their children watch on
television. In Ginsberg, the Supreme Court upheld a New
York statute making it illegal to sell obscene material
to children. The Court noted that it was proper for
legislation to help parents exercise their ``primary
responsibility for [their] children's well-being with
laws designed to aid [in the] discharge of that
responsibility.'' \28\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Privacy of the home.--The government's interest in
protecting the privacy of the home from intrusion by
violent programming may provide another compelling
governmental interest. The Supreme Court has recognized
that ``in the privacy of the home . . . the
individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs
the First Amendment rights of an intruder.'' \29\ The
right to privacy in one's home was recently used to
uphold legislation limiting persons from making
automated telephone calls to residences and small
businesses.\30\ Just as subscribers to telephones do
not give permission to telemarketers to place automated
telephone calls, the ownership of a television does not
give programmers permission to broadcast material that
is an intrusion into the privacy of the home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978).
\30\ Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The Least Restrictive Means
Opponents of the legislation argue that the safe harbor
approach to television violence is not the least restrictive
means of accomplishing the goals of reducing children's
exposure to television violence. Some in the broadcast industry
argue that the industry should be trusted to regulate itself.
Parents should bear the primary responsibility for protecting
their children, according to some observers. Others say that
the warnings and advisories that many programmers now add to
certain shows are a lesser restrictive means of protecting
children. In addition, opponents of legislation assert that the
V-chip and the television ratings system provide a less
restrictive means of protecting children.
In United States v. Playboy, 329 U.S. 803 (2000), the
Supreme Court invalidated a provision in the 1996 Act that
required cable operators to either scramble sexually explicit
channels in full, or limit programming on such channels to
hours when children are not likely to be watching. The Court
held that the provision was a content based restriction. The
Court further held that the requirements of the provision were
not the least restrictive means of achieving the government's
goal. The Court found that another provision in the 1996 Act,
that required cable operators to fully block any channel upon
request by a subscriber provided a less restrictive
alternative. The Court added that even if this option was not
widely used by cable subscribers, the government bears the
burden of proving that the available alternative is not
effective. Title II of S. 2056 is crafted in part to respond to
Playboy. The FCC is only directed to implement a safe harbor
for violence after it determines that the V-chip and ratings
system are ineffective alternative means of protecting children
from television violence. Prior to reaching such a
determination, the FCC is directed to prohibit violent
programming that is not electronically blockable, i.e., that is
not encoded specifically with a rating for violent content.
While the Committee cannot predict the outcome of the FCC's
analysis of the effectiveness of the V-chip and the ratings
system, the Committee does note that parental supervision alone
may not sufficiently protect children from violence on
television. For example, the problem of children's exposure to
violence on television is especially acute for residents of
inner city neighborhoods. According to Gael Davis of the
National Council of Negro Women, ``Violence is the No. 1 cause
of death in the African-American community. . . . [I]n south
central [Los Angeles], . . . [t]he environment is permeated
with violence. It is unsafe for children to walk to and from
school. We have 80 percent latch-key children, where there will
be no parent in the home during the afterschool hours when they
are viewing the television. The television has truly become our
electronic babysitter.'' \31\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Testimony of Gael T. Davis, President, East Side Section,
National Council of Negro Women, Hearing on S. 1383, the Children's
Protection from Violent Programming Act of 1993, et al. before the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, October 20,
1993.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many children do not have the benefit of parents willing
and able to monitor the television programming they watch.
According to William Abbott of the Foundation to Improve
Television, ``millions of children watch television
unsupervised, one-fourth of our children have but a single
parent (the latch-key kids).'' \32\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Testimony of William Abbott, President, Foundation to Improve
Television, before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Hearing on Television Violence, July 12, 1995.
* * * * * * *
Under the ``strict scrutiny'' test, a regulation that
limits freedom of speech based on the content must use ``the
least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.''
\33\ As the following discussion demonstrates, in the absence
of an effective V-chip and content based ratings system, the
safe harbor approach is the only approach that has a
significant chance of furthering the compelling governmental
interest in protecting American children from the impact of
television violence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Sable Communications of California., Inc v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115,
126 (1989).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry self-regulation.--The television industry
has been directed to improve its programming by
Congress for over 40 years. The first congressional
hearings on television violence were held in 1952.
Hearings were held in the Senate in 1954 and again in
the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and again, three times
since 2000. At many of these hearings, representatives
of the television industry testified that they were
committed to ensuring that their programming was safe
and appropriate for children. In 1972, the Surgeon
General called for Congressional action, but this call
was ignored after the broadcast industry reached an
agreement with the FCC to restrict violent programs and
programs unsuitable for children during the family
hour. There is substantial evidence, however, that
despite the promises of the television industry, the
amount of violence on television is far greater than
the amount of violence in society and continues to
increase. According to one study, ``[s]ince 1955,
television characters have been murdered at a rate one
thousand times higher than real-world victims. Indeed,
television violence has far outstripped reality since
the 1950s.'' \34\ The incentives of the television
industry to air violent programming are best
illustrated by a quote from a memo giving directions to
the writers of the program ``Man Against Crime'' on CBS
in 1953: ``It has been found that we retain audience
interest best when our stories are concerned with
murder. Therefore, although other crimes may be
introduced, somebody must be murdered, preferably
early, with the threat of more violence to come.'' \35\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter, and Stanley Rothman,
Prime Time: How TV portrays American Culture, (Regnery Publishing,
Inc., Washington, D.C., 1994), p. 275.
\35\ Quoted in Eric Barnouw, The Image Empire, p. 23.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1992, the 4 broadcast networks released a
common code of standards that many criticized for being
weaker than the networks' own code of practices. In any
case, the code appears to have had little effect on the
amount of violence on television.
Recent efforts by the broadcast and cable industries
to educate parents about the V-chip and channel
blocking can be viewed as another effort to avoid
regulation without affecting the amount of violent
programming to which children are exposed.
Warning labels.--Some observers argue that a
requirement to put warnings or parental advisories
before certain violent programs would be a less
restrictive means of satisfying the Government's
interest in protecting children. The Committee has
received no evidence, however, that such warnings
accomplish the purpose of protecting children. Despite
the industry's efforts to air such advisories on their
own initiative, the National Parent-Teacher's
Association and the Foundation to Improve Television
support a safe harbor approach. Indeed, there is some
reason to believe that advisories may increase the
amount of violence on television, as some observers
believe that programmers may want a warning label to be
placed on a program in order to attract viewers.\36\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For example, Ms. Lindsay Wagner, a television actress,
testified in 1993 that film makers sometimes lobby to get an R rating.
``We now have a couple of generations that have been reared on violence
for fun and many flock to the films with warnings.'' Testimony of Ms.
Lindsay Wagner, Hearing on S. 1383, the Children's Protection from
Violent Programming Act of 1993, before the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, without parental supervision, such warning
labels may have the opposite effect of increasing the
number of children who watch violent programming. In
addition, warnings that appear once at the very
beginning of a program may not be seen by a viewer who
does not see the beginning of a program. Furthermore,
it is difficult to believe that such warnings would be
effective in the age of channel surfing.
Parental responsibility and control technologies.--
Some observers believe that parents should bear the
primary responsibility for protecting their children
from violent programming, and that a variety of
technologies are now available to assist parents in
controlling the programs that their children watch. For
several reasons, these approaches do not appear to be
effective.
Even when parents are available and concerned about
the television programs that their children watch, they
may not be able to monitor their children's television
viewing habits at all times. According to one survey,
66 percent of homes have three or more television sets,
and 54 percent of children have a TV set in their own
bedrooms. Children often watch television unsupervised.
In fact, 55 percent of children usually watch
television alone or with friends, but not with their
families.
The implementation of the safe harbor approach is
contingent upon the FCC finding that the content based ratings
system, when used in conjunction with the V-chip, provides an
ineffective means of protecting children from television
violence. If the FCC makes such a determination, it is unlikely
that other technology-based solutions will more appropriately
address the issue of children and television violence. In
addition, technology-based solutions may require parents to
spend money to purchase the new technologies. Development of
such technologies are also uncertain. There are also questions
about the ability of parents to program the technologies
effectively. In many households, the children often are more
comfortable with the technologies than the parents.
3. DEFINITION OF VIOLENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING
Title II of S. 2056 adopts the same approach toward violent
video programming as Congress has previously adopted for
indecency. Section 1464 of title 18 prohibits the broadcast of
indecency but does not contain a definition of the term. In
1975, the FCC adopted a definition of indecency that the courts
have upheld. While it may be difficult to craft a definition of
violent video programming, that is not overbroad, that is not
vague, and that is consistent with the research of harm caused
to children, these are exactly the tasks that the FCC was
created to perform. The FCC can hold its own hearings, seek
comment from the industry and the public, and review the
research in detail in order develop a definition that satisfies
constitutional scrutiny.
Some observers cite the case of Video Software Dealers
Association v. Webster to support the position that legislation
to restrict violent video material is unconstitutional.\37\
That case, however, concerned a statute that neither contained
a definition of violent video material nor delegated the
definition to an expert regulatory agency. Title II of S. 2056,
by contrast, does not take effect until the FCC issues a
definition of violent video programming. In Davis-Kidd Books v.
McWherter, the court overturned a statute that contained a
definition that was overly vague.\38\ While this case
demonstrates the difficulty of defining violent video
programming, it does not stand for the proposition that such
term is incapable of being defined.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992).
\38\ 866 S.W.2d 250 (1993).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. APPLICABILITY TO MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES
Some question the constitutionality of restricting violence
on multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) services,
including cable and direct broadcasting satellite (DBS), noting
that Red Lion,\39\ Pacifica, and the ACT cases pertain only to
broadcasting, not to cable or any other form of media. However,
the strict scrutiny test applies to any content regulation, not
just those imposed on broadcast stations. Court cases indicate
that a restriction on violent video programming could,
potentially, be imposed on any media if it satisfies the strict
scrutiny test.\40\ The court's rationale for subjecting
broadcasting to a more restrictive treatment includes, the
scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the pervasive presence of
broadcast, and accessibility of broadcast to children. In
recognizing the special status of broadcasting, the Supreme
Court, in the National Broadcasting Co. and Red Lion cases,
concluded that due to spectrum scarcity, broadcast frequencies
are not available to all who wish to use them. The Supreme
Court in ACT IV, addressed the pervasive presence of broadcast
and its accessibility to children. The Court stated, ``the
broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence
in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent
material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not
only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, . . .
Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children . . .
The ease with which children may obtain access to broadcast
material, . . . amply justifies special treatment of indecent
broadcasting.\41\ The ACT IV court further noted that
``broadcast audiences have no choice but to `subscribe' to the
entire output of traditional broadcasters.'' \42\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
\40\ The court in ACT IV states, ``[W]e apply strict scrutiny to
regulations of this kind [concerning indecency] regardless of the
medium affected by them. . . .'' ACT IV, at 660.
\41\ Ibid., 659-660.
\42\ Ibid., 660.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as with broadcast television, MVPD services have grown
to have a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all
Americans and are uniquely accessible to children. Over 85
percent of households now receive some form of MVPD service,
with 90 percent of such households choosing expanded basic
offerings. From the perspective of the viewer, and especially
children, there is little if any distinction between broadcast
programs and expanded basic programs that are carried on a MVPD
system.
Two recent Supreme Court cases indicate that it is
permissible to regulate pay-TV platforms. The Supreme Court, in
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v.
FCC,\43\ addressed the constitutionality of section 10 of the
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992. Although the Court struck certain provisions of section
10, it held that section 10(a), which permits cable operators
to decide whether or not to broadcast indecent programs on
leased access channels, is consistent with the First Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v.
FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Playboy, the Supreme Court addressed the
constitutionality of section 505 of the 1996 Act. While the
court struck down the provisions in question, it did so on the
grounds that it was not the least restrictive alternative, not
because Congress cannot regulate content on cable.
In fact, the District Court opinion in Playboy stated that,
``. . . cable television is a means of communication which is
pervasive and . . . [t]he Supreme Court has recognized that
cable television is as accessible to children as over-the-air
broadcasting, if not more so.'' \44\ Moreover, the Supreme
Court in its consideration of freedom of speech under the First
Amendment has recognized the need to protect children from
sexually explicit material, particularly in the context of a
pervasive medium.\45\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Playboy Entertainment Group v. United States, 945 F. Supp. 722
(1996).
\45\ Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 750-51.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title II of S. 2056 is not intended to apply to premium or
pay-per-view channels in recognition of the fact that parents
have the choice to subscribe to these channels on an individual
basis. This distinction between premium channels and pay-per-
view programs, on the one hand, and basic or expanded basic
packages of cable or DBS programs, on the other, demonstrates
the Committee's attempt to balance the rights of children and
the legitimate rights of parents to watch the programs that
they want to watch. In this way, the legislation avoids
unnecessarily interfering with parents' First Amendment rights
in order to meet the least restrictive means test.
Legislative History
Senators Brownback (for himself, Mr. Allen, and Mr. L.
Graham) introduced S. 2056 on February 9, 2004. The Committee
held a hearing on indecent and violent programming and its
effect on children on February 11, 2004 where all five FCC
Commissioners testified.
On March 9, 2004, the Committee held an executive session
at which S. 2056 was considered. The bill was approved
unanimously by voice vote and was ordered reported with
amendments. The Committee first approved a perfecting amendment
by Senators McCain and Brownback that would impose a per-
utterance penalty; require the FCC to consider a number of
factors when assessing a fine; create a cap on the total amount
a broadcast licensee may be fined during a 24-hour period;
establish deadlines for the FCC to act on indecency complaints;
and compel the FCC to report to Congress annually about its
indecency enforcement activities. The perfecting amendment was
modified by a second-degree amendment by Senator Stevens that
would create an escalating fine structure; double the cap on
fines if the FCC finds certain aggravating factors present; and
require the FCC to commence a license revocation proceeding
against any licensee that has paid, or been ordered by a court
to pay, fines arising from three indecency violations during
its license term. Additionally, the Committee approved an
amendment offered by Senator Stevens that would eliminate any
restrictions on broadcasters or associations representing
broadcasters from instituting a voluntary industry code of
conduct governing a family viewing policy. The Committee also
approved an amendment by Senators Stevens and Allen that would
``streamline'' the process for imposing financial penalties
against non-licensees who violate 18 U.S.C. 1464, and increase
the cap on fines against non-licensee violators. An amendment
by Senators Dorgan, Lott, Snowe, and Cantwell was approved that
would require the relationship between media consolidation and
indecent broadcasts to be studied by the General Accounting
Office (GAO) and would suspend the FCC's June 2, 2003, media
ownership rules while the GAO conducts its study.
The Committee also approved an amendment by Senators
Hollings and Stevens that would require the FCC to study the
effectiveness of the V-Chip and prohibit the distribution of
violent video programming during the hours when children are
reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the
audience, if the V-chip is determined to be ineffective.
The amendment is substantially similar to legislation
previously reported favorably by the Committee. In October,
1993, the Committee held a hearing on television violence to
consider a variety of legislative proposals. Attorney General
Janet Reno testified that the legislation pending before the
Committee, including S. 1383, the Hollings-Inouye legislation
establishing a safe harbor for violent programming, would be
constitutional.
On July 11, 1995, the Committee held its second hearing on
television violence to consider pending measures, including S.
470, the Hollings safe harbor legislation. S. 470 (104th
Congress) is identical to S. 1383 (103rd Congress). The
Committee subsequently reported S. 470, as introduced, on
August 10, 1995, by a recorded vote of 16 to 1, with two
Senators not voting. No further action was taken during the
104th Congress.
On February 26, 1997, Senator Hollings with Senators Inouye
and Dorgan as co-sponsors, introduced S. 363. S. 363 was
similar to S. 470 but allowed the Commission to implement a
safe harbor if it did not implement a content-based ratings
system. On February 27, 1997, the Committee held another
hearing on television violence in which S. 363 was addressed.
Groups such as the APA expressed their disapproval of the
current age based rating system proposed by the industry and
noted their preference for a content-based ratings system.
Kevin Saunders, Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma,
testified that violent programming could arguably be considered
obscene or indecent and the safe harbor approach is
constitutional.\46\ On May 1, 1997, the Committee reported S.
363 with one amendment to add findings by a recorded vote of 19
to 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Testimony of Kevin Saunders, J.D., Ph.D. before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, February 27, 1997.
p. 17 and 7.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 1999, Senator Hollings introduced S. 876, safe
harbor legislation that was substantially similar to S. 470 and
S. 1383. The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Byrd, Durbin,
and Inouye. On May 13, 1999, the Committee held its third
hearing on television violence and safe harbor legislation.
Senator Hollings' bill, S. 876 was discussed at length, and
testimony was offered as to the constitutionality of the
measure as well as the adverse harm to children affected by
exposure to violence on television. On September 20, 2000, the
Committee reported S. 876, as amended, by a recorded vote of 17
to 1, with one Senator voting present.
On April 10, 2003, the Committee held its fourth hearing on
the impact of violent material on children. Specifically, the
witnesses testified on neurobiological research in the field of
brain mapping and conclusions reached on the impact of media
violence on children. On February 1, 2004, the Committee held
its fifth hearing on television violence. Senator Hollings safe
harbor legislation, S. 161, which was incorporated with minor
changes as an amendment into S. 2056, was discussed by the five
FCC Commissioners.
REVIEW AND FILING OF REPORT
Before any report is filed by the Committee, it is reviewed
by several staff members to ensure that it complies with
Committee standards and the Standing Rules of the Senate. The
Committee uses a routing slip, which is attached to the draft
report as it makes its way through the review and approval
process, in order to track the report's progress. The
Committee's Legislative Counsel usually generates the routing
slip when the initial draft is formatted for printing.
PREPARATION OF INITIAL DRAFT
The first draft of a committee report is usually prepared
by the majority staff of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction
of the measure. That staff should make sure that the report
contains all necessary sections, that the statements made in
the draft are accurate, and that the material is presented in a
concise, clear, and orderly fashion. When the first draft is
complete, it may be sent to the Committee's Legislative Counsel
for formatting before being transmitted to the minority staff
or it may be transmitted directly to the minority staff of that
subcommittee in order to complete a mutually acceptable first
draft before it is given to the Committee's Legislative Counsel
for its initial formatting. The latter procedure may be more
efficient where there is general agreement between the majority
and minority staff as to the content or where such extensive
revisions to the first draft are anticipated that formatting
the first draft would be a waste of time and Committee
resources.
REVIEW BY MINORITY STAFF
Once the draft report has been cleared by the majority
subcommittee staff, it should be sent to the minority staff of
the same subcommittee for review. As noted in the preceding
paragraph, this review may occur before or after the draft
report is given to the Committee's Legislative Counsel for
formatting. The minority staff should carefully review the
report and consult with the majority staff on any necessary or
desired revisions. When the majority and minority subcommittee
staff responsible for the initial draft have agreed on a
mutually acceptable version of the report, they should indicate
their agreement by initialing and dating the routing slip and
giving the draft and any revisions to the Committee's
Legislative Counsel.
SUBSEQUENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL
The Committee's Legislative Counsel will revise the draft
report as necessary and forward the revised draft, with the
routing slip, to the general counsel for the minority, who will
indicate any edits requested on the hard copy of the report,
initial and date the routing slip, and return it to the
Committee's Legislative Counsel. The Committee's Legislative
Counsel will execute the edits and transmit the edited report,
together with a copy of the requested edits, to the general
counsel for the majority. After review, and possible further
editing by the general counsel for the majority, the copy and
routing slip are returned to the Legislative Counsel for
further revision as necessary before being submitted to the
minority staff director and the majority staff director,
respectively, for final review and approval. During the review
process, edits are often negotiated between the majority and
the minority staff, with the goal of making sure the final
report reflects as nearly as possible the views of the
Committee as a whole.
FILING OF THE REPORT
The majority staff is responsible for filing the bill and
report after the report has been approved by the staff
directors. The majority staff director will notify the
Committee's Legislative Counsel when a report is ready to be
filed. The Committee's Legislative Counsel will then prepare a
clean copy of the bill and the report for filing, transmit the
data files for the bill and the report to the Government
Printing Office (GPO), and notify the Bill Clerk's office by e-
mail when they are filed (attaching copies of the PDFs and
related data files to the e-mail). The chairman's signature is
required on the front page of the bill and the report. The bill
and report are then delivered to the majority party cloakroom
for filing. No accompanying statement or other action by the
chairman is required.
TIMING
As a general rule, it is desirable for the report to be
drafted as soon as possible after a bill is ordered reported by
the Committee. While a good part of the report language may
already have been written as part of the briefing memoranda for
the markup, it is always better to put together the description
of committee consideration of a measure while memories of the
markup are fresh.
As noted in the introduction, rule XVII of the Standing
Rules of the Senate establishes a minimum period of time
between the date on which a bill is reported and the date on
which it first can be considered. It is important that the data
files for a reported bill and the accompanying report are made
available to GPO when the bill and report are filed. Failure to
make them available in a timely fashion may result in
unnecessary delay in the delivery of the printed report to the
Senate and that may adversely affect the Senate's schedule or
frustrate the Committee's intentions with respect to moving the
legislation. Even if GPO has the files as soon as a report is
filed, it may still take up to a week to obtain printed copies
of the report, and even longer when other Congressional
activity significantly increases the GPO's workload, which is
another reason for getting the reports written and filed as
expeditiously as possible.
EXTRA COPIES OF REPORTS
The Committee receives 150 copies of a printed report and
bill for the use of the Public Information Office and Committee
staff. After internal distribution, approximately 75 copies
remain for public distribution. The Senate Document Room will
receive additional copies. Usually this is more than
sufficient. In rare instances, however, where the demand for
copies of the report or the bill is expected to exceed the
supply, the Committee can request the printing of additional
copies if the request is submitted before the report and bill
are filed. The request must be made by the Committee clerk
through the Public Information Office.
THINGS TO AVOID
The 3 principal mistakes to avoid when preparing any
Committee report are the following:
UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS
The staff is responsible for the accuracy of every
statement in the report. If a statement cannot be verified, it
should be dropped. This requirement applies equally to any
material supplied by a government agency or other interested
party.
PERSONAL OPINIONS
A committee report is supposed to reflect the consensus of
a majority of the full committee and not the individual views
of a single Senator or of the staff member preparing the
report. The staff member must make sure that the report
accurately reflects the oral and written views adopted by the
Committee at the markup and does not contain any embellishments
that go beyond an accurate and good-faith description of these
views.
The staff member should also insure that the report
maintains a professional tone and unbiased perspective
befitting the Committee. This does not mean that a staff member
cannot be an advocate for a position officially adopted by the
Committee, but it does mean that the presentation of any
arguments for or against that position in the report should be
accurate and unbiased.
EXTRA ARGUMENTS FOR OPPONENTS
The opponents of any controversial bill may scour the
report for statements to use in arguments against the bill. As
noted in the preceding paragraph, arguments for or against the
Committee's position should be fairly and carefully stated. It
may be possible in this manner to anticipate and counter an
argument that an opponent might use against the bill. In doing
so, however, one must be extremely careful not to leave any
loopholes or careless statements that may be used against the
bill. It is often helpful to have another staffer who is
familiar with the bill closely examine critical sections of the
draft report to make sure that the other staffer's
interpretation of the language is consistent with its intended
effect.
A FEW MATTERS OF STYLE
In order to ensure that committee reports are written in a
clear, easily read and understood, expository style, it may be
useful to consult a work such as ``The Elements of Style'' \4\
or any other work providing guidance on style, usage, and
grammar. The Chicago Manual of Style is available online at
http://webster.senate.gov under the ``News & Research'' tab.
The Government Printing Office publishes a Style Manual, which
primarily addresses technical matters of style for government
publications such as capitalization, compound words,
punctuation, and abbreviations. There are several special rules
observed in Committee reports, some of which are derived from
the GPO Style Manual, including the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Elements of Style, 4th Ed., William Strunk, Jr., E.B.
White, Roger Angell, Allyn & Bacon (2000).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oxford Comma. The Committee style in
reports and legislation is to include a comma after the
penultimate item in a series ending with ``and'' or
``or''. Thus, the name of the Committee is the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Abbreviating frequently used terms. As
should be apparent from examples elsewhere in this
guide, an abbreviation, in parentheses without
quotation marks, should appear immediately after the
first usage of a term in a report that will be used
multiple times in the report. E.g., . . . the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Committee) .
. . the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) . . .
voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) . . . the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).
Capitalizing Federal and State. Generally
the words ``Federal'' and ``State'' are capitalized.
Not capitalizing section. The word
``section'' is not capitalized unless it is the first
word in a sentence; neither are the words ``chapter''
or ``title'', as in `` . . . would amend chapter 449 of
title 49, United States Code, . . .''..
Use of subjunctive. The subjunctive mood is
employed to describe what would happen if a reported
bill were to be enacted. Thus, ``Section 2 of the bill
would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to increase
the penalty for . . .'' rather than ``Section 2 of the
bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 . . .''.
References to existing law. References to
provisions of existing law in a committee report should
refer to the permanent law rather than the United
States Code citation if the law appears in a title of
the Code that has not yet been enacted into permanent
law (codified). \5\ See the 4th and 5th examples on
pages 4 and 5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All Federal laws of a general and permanent nature are arranged
in a compilation known as the United States Code, where they are
organized topically into 50 different titles. As of the end of the
108th Congress, 24 of those titles have been revised, codified, and
enacted without substantive change as permanent law. As for the laws
that appear in yet ``uncodified'' titles, the Code is merely prima
facie evidence of the law, i.e., an editorial compilation of
convenience. The provisions of those titles, which include several
subjects within the jurisdiction of the Committee, can be cited by
reference to the Code but -- because the United States Code title in
which they are contained has not yet been enacted as permanent law --
they cannot be amended or repealed by reference to the Code citation.
Thus, the text of section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934
(relating to universal service) appears as section 254 of title 47,
United States Code, but any amendment of that text must be made to the
underlying permanent law, i.e., section 254 of the Communications Act
of 1934, rather than title 47, United States Code. On the other hand,
title 49, United States Code, relating to transportation was
``codified'' in 1994 and changes in that law are now effected by
amending the appropriate provision of title 49. References in a report
to such an amendment should refer to the United States Code citation
(in no small part because the underlying laws that were ``codified''
are repealed as part of the process), i.e., ``Section ---- of the bill
would amend section 44922 of title 49, United States Code, (title 49)
to . . ..''.
APPENDIX:
HOW TO INTRODUCE A BILL
[Note: The process and procedures described here are those that are in
effect at the time this guide was prepared.]
Committee staff members are often called upon to develop
draft legislation for introduction by the chairman or other
members of the Committee. This appendix is intended to provide
basic guidance to new staff members on how to go about getting
a bill to the floor for introduction.
ON YOUR MARK!
When a subcommittee staff has a Staff Working Draft nearing
readiness for introduction, it should work with the Staff
Director's office on the following steps:
Resolve any questions of committee jurisdiction.
If there is a concern that the Parliamentarian may
consider the bill to be in the jurisdiction of another
Senate Committee (EPW, HSGAC, Energy, etc.) please
discuss ahead of time with the General Counsel and
Staff Director. It may also be advisable to write a
short memo and seek an opinion from the Parliamentarian
prior to introduction. It is much easier to resolve the
jurisdictional issue before dropping than after. It may
be necessary to have portions of the bill redrafted or
omitted to ensure referral to CST.
Draft any necessary memos to the Staff Director
for approval to introduce, particular questions of
content, and any other matters deemed necessary by the
front office. Submit through normal clearance process.
Receive definitive approval to proceed with
introduction from the Staff Director.
Draft any supporting documents as necessary, such
as summaries, section-by-section description, etc.
Inform the Communications Director of the
impending introduction, alert him or her to any
corollary issues, and work with him or her to draft
press releases, etc.
Optional: Obtain letters of support. If not upon
introduction, you may wish to collect them for use in
markup.
GET SET!
Once the bill and all components have been cleared by
Counsel, Staff Director's office, and all corrections and edits
made by the Committee's Legislative Counsel, receive final
version of the bill. The Legislative Counsel can remove the
``Staff Working Draft'' header and dateline for a cleaner copy,
although this is not required for introduction. Also, you may
wish to update the cosponsor information.
Upon receipt of the final draft from the Legislative Counsel,
inform the Legislative Counsel and the assistant as to when the
bill will be dropped so that the file can be forwarded
electronically to GPO! Failure to do so results in a 2 a.m.
telephone call to the Legislative Counsel from the GPO night
crew looking for the data file.
Consider your timing. Do not let the Senate adjourn on you by
waiting too long! The Senate must be in session for a bill to
be introduced!
Be sure to write the staff contact information (name, number,
office) on the back of the last page of the bill and any floor
statement accompanying the bill.
You need 1 copy of the statement and 2 copies of the bill (if
you intend for the bill text to be printed in the Congressional
Record) because 1 copy of the bill will be going to the Bill
Clerk and another to the Record staff.
The front page of each item should have the Sponsor's
original signature (not a copied page) at the top.
All original cosponsors must be listed on the front page of
the bill in the order in which they should appear on the GPO
printed version. If they have not been printed on the final
draft, write the names in the correct order on each copy. If
this is not done, it is virtually impossible to correct the
next day (and entirely impossible to add original cosponsors
once the introduced bill is printed by GPO). If you drop a bill
earlier in the day and have a late additional cosponsor, you
CAN send down a separate UC request for that Senator's
inclusion as an original cosponsor (if done on the same
legislative day).
Last minute changes, if absolutely necessary, may be made by
hand to the printed document. The general rule is that when
hand written conflicts with the electronically filed document,
hand written wins. Do not make any change that has not been
agreed to by all parties involved.
GO!
Drop off all copies (2 of the bill, 1 intro statement) at the
Democratic or Republican Cloakroom depending upon the party
affiliation of the sponsor. If you have a complicated package
of documents, ask to speak to the Assistant Secretary for the
Majority or the Minority, as appropriate, and follow his or her
instructions.
In order for the text of a bill to be printed in the
Congressional Record, a Unanimous Consent request must be
included as the last sentence of the sponsor's statement upon
introduction. If you have not done this, it may be possible to
add a UC request, signed, to the top of the package, but you
will have to work with the Cloakroom staff directly to make
sure they will allow it. Always making sure it is in the signed
statement to begin with is much easier.
For details on the Statement of Introduction, please see the
next section. Requirements vary when the Senator introduces on
the floor, however, following these guidelines is the
precautionary approach for ensuring proper publication in the
Congressional Record and saving yourself from multiple trips to
the Cloakroom.
INTRODUCTION STATEMENTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INCLUSION OF INTRODUCTION STATEMENTS IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Unless the sponsor intends to deliver the
introductory statement in person on the floor of the
Senate, turn in 2 copies of the bill and any statements
related thereto to the appropriate Cloakroom. The
Cloakroom will forward these to the Parliamentarian,
who determines which committee has jurisdiction over
the bill. The Parliamentarian informs the Bill Clerk of
the referral and the Bill Clerk writes that information
on the copy and assigns the bill number.
If the sponsor is not going to deliver the
introductory statement in person on the floor of the
Senate:
You need 2 copies of the bill, both with
original signatures. You may not copy the top
page for the second copy.
You need 1 copy of the statement of
introduction. It must include a UC request to
print the full text of the bill in the record
if that is desired.
The UC request MUST be the LAST sentence
of the introductory statement for clerks to
read actually see it.
The statement must be signed (original
signature of Senator on each copy if there is
more than 1).
Staff contact information (name and
number) must be on the back of the last page of
the bill and any statement.
E-mail an electronic version of the
statement to [email protected].
OFFICES AND CONTACTS
The Official Reporters of Debates are responsible for the
stenographic reporting, transcribing, and editing of the Senate
floor proceedings for publication in the Congressional Record.
Their offices are on the 4th floor of the Capitol building.They
will deal with the any introduction statements related to the
bill. There is an individual who serves as the Coordinator of
the Record. The Morning Business Editor (224-3079) compiles the
introductions and statements for the Record. Since only a
Standing Order under Senate Rules allows bills to be introduced
at times other than during morning business, all introduced
measures appear in the morning business section of the Record.
The Bill Clerk (224-2118 or 224-2120) is responsible for
preparing for print all measures introduced, received,
submitted, and reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also
assigns numbers to all Senate bills and resolutions. All the
information received by the Bill Clerk comes directly from the
Senate floor in written form within moments of the action
involved.
FORMAT FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
To assist the Congressional Record staff in preparing the
sponsor's statement, or the sponsors' colloquy, for printing in
the Congressional Record, it is requested that:
You attach the document file to an e-mail and send
it to Record at Secretary (in the address book, type
Secretary, Record) OR type [email protected]).
You use Word or WordPerfect.
You deliver the hard copy of the statement, signed
by the sponsor, to the appropriate Cloakroom.
The responsible staff person (the person to call
if there is a question about the document) sign the
back of the statement, including his or her phone
number.
The document be formatted as follows:
HEALTH CARE
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as our Nation wrestles with rising health
care costs, the Senate will focus this year on legislation to address
many complex problems.
[Notice that the title is in all caps and indented 15
spaces.]
Senators are identified as Mr., Ms., or Mrs. Only
the ``M'' is capped.
Senator's last name is in all caps.
Always address the Senator's remarks to Mr.
President, but never to ``Mr. Chairman'' or ``Senator
Smith.''
Indent all paragraphs 5 spaces.
Note: Please indicate ``LIVE'' or the statement
will be bulleted.
EDITING FLOOR REMARKS (ROOM S410-A)
If the sponsor intends to deliver the introductory
statement in person on the floor of the Senate, you should be
aware that:
Transcripts of remarks will be available to edit
within 60 to 90 minutes after the Senator speaks on the
floor.
All copy is sent to GPO for printing every 3
hours; so the window for editing is between 1 and 3
hours after the Senator speaks.
At adjournment, remarks generally are available
sooner than in the 60-90 minute range and are delivered
to GPO in less than 3 hours.
If there are questions about this procedure, call 224-3152.
GPO PREFERRED SPELLINGS AND CAPITALIZATIONS FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD
act (but Trade Act)
administration (as in Obama administration)
al-Qaida
amendment
bill (as in the GI bill)
chairman (but Chairman Leahy, the chairman)
cochair
cold war
committee (but Judiciary Committee)
cosponsor (not co-sponsor)
dialog
Governor
Ground Zero (New York site)
Federal (but federally)
Federal Government
fiscal year 2003 (not FY02)
majority, minority leader
Member (of Congress)
member (of the committee)
Nation (but a nation)
percent (not %)
President Obama (not the president of a company or
organization)
rollcall (not roll call)
September 11 (not 11th)
State (but statehood)
Supreme Court (and the Court)
trust fund (always lower case, even after Social Security)
Web site
When referring to a city AND State, please abbreviate the
State (as in St. Louis, MO)
DO NOT use parentheses, Italics, underlining, or bold type
Money should be carried as $3 million, billion, or trillion