HOUSE PASSES DECENCY BILL WITHOUT OWNERSHIP AMENDMENT

Members weren’t allowed to consider an amendment from Rep. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) that would have added a media ownership study to the bill. The amendment, which is similar to one added to the Senate legislation (S-2056) on Tues. (CD March 10 p1), was ruled not germane to the bill and not allowed to be offered. The Senate’s version of the amendment was pushed by Sens. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Lott (R-Miss.) and would require a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on how media consolidation affects broadcast decency. The amendment would also delay implementation of the FCC’s media ownership rules until the study is complete, which would likely take a year. Hinchey said a complete study would require a long time.

But despite not getting the amendment, Hinchey said he would request the report from GAO. And he said he’s not done with the fight for other media ownership measures, including the proposal for a “legislative veto” of the FCC’s rule. Hinchey said he will soon circulate a discharge petition for H.J. Res.-72, which is identical to S.J. Res.-17 that passed the Senate 55-40 last year. The “resolutions of disapproval” would restore the FCC’s previous ownership guidelines. House leaders have no intention of calling the resolution before the House, but if a majority of House members signed the petition, it would automatically be scheduled for floor consideration. Hinchey circulated a letter last year that asked House Speaker Hastert (R-Ill.) to allow a vote on S.J. Res.-17. The letter fell 10 signatures shy of the 218 needed for a majority. (The informal letter wouldn’t have forced a vote.)

House Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.) said the there’s a “time and place” for the media ownership debate, but its presence in the decency bill would delay its enactment. On the floor, Upton said the media ownership issue isn’t “going away.” House Telecom Subcommittee ranking Democrat Markey (Mass.) said he pushed for an open rule on the bill, which would have allowed the media ownership amendment, and said he would support the amendment if it remained in the Senate bill.

After the vote, both Upton and Markey said they had few details of the controversial violence amendments added to the Senate bill (S-2056), which was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee Tues. Upton and Markey said they weren’t familiar with the amendment from Senate Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Hollings (S.C.) that could lead to violence also being classified as indecent material, even for cable systems and DBS. The amendment would require the FCC study the V-chip to determine if it’s effective. If it’s found ineffective, the FCC would have to develop rules that would prohibit violence during hours when children would be viewing. Upton said violent programming would remain a concern for members. Both he and Markey were among more than 30 Commerce Committee members to sign a letter to FCC Chmn. Powell urging the FCC to begin a notice of inquiry on violent TV programming.

Rep. Schakowsky (D-Ill.) was a no-show when the House raised her amendment that would prevent artists from being fined for indecency violations. She was the only member of the Commerce Committee to vote against the Committee markup of the bill, citing her concern that the provision would chill free speech. Knowing her amendment would be overwhelmingly defeated, she said she decided not to raise the amendment and that she would continue to organize support for the issue. Schakowsky also said she expected some senators to fight against a similar provision in the Senate bill that would fine performers. “I'll get more people to see this is an infringement on free speech,” Schakowsky said following the vote. House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) said he strongly opposed the Schakowsky amendment and believed fines levied against on-air talent were constitutional. “Everyone, including performers, will be held accountable,” he said.

Most members on both sides of the aisle spoke in favor of the bill. Upton emphasized that the bill didn’t change indecency standards and said transcripts of some offenses were “triple X smut stuff that should never be broadcast on the public airwaves.” Barton said the bill will “make living rooms safe again.” Rep. Pitts (R-Pa.) said the bill is a “clear signal to the entertainment industry that we will no longer idly stand by” as indecent content is broadcast. Rep. Gingrey (R-Ga.) said “our liberties require responsibility.” Rep. Rush (D-Ill.) highlighted the issues of violence and also said the FCC should create a better complaint system where transcripts or tapes of complaints weren’t required. Rush cited a letter to House Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.) where Powell said some complaints were dropped because tapes weren’t made available. “It’s an outrage that the FCC dismisses complaints because it lacks a tape,” Upton said. “We will closely monitor FCC action.”

But there were a few members who spoke against the bill. House Govt. Reform Committee ranking Democrat Waxman (Cal.) said the FCC has failed to use the enforcement power it already has. “This opens the door to more interference of free speech on the airwaves,” Waxman said. “Important broadcast issues aren’t being addressed, like the ownership issue.” Rep. Price (D-N.C.) said he wanted the media ownership amendment addressed. “We're losing control of the airwaves,” said Price, lamenting the “race to the bottom… The community has virtually no say on what occurs on the airwaves.”

Several members also suggested a political link between Clear Channel’s dismissal of Howard Stern on the 6 stations it owns that carried Stern’s show. Stern has said Clear Channel -- which is often politically associated with President Bush -- dropped him after he reversed his support for Bush. Reps. Weiner (D-N.Y.), Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Serrano (D-N.Y.) all questioned the timing and politics of Stern’s release. “He was okay when he was supporting the Administration,” Serrano said, noting that Stern has recently begun disagreeing with Bush’s policies after originally supporting them. Ackerman said the bill was an effort to “bully” people from speaking out against the Administration.

Andrew Levin, Clear Channel Chief Legal Officer, said: “Absurd. It’s amazing to me that people buy into conspiracy theories so easily. The truth is the Stern show in question was sexually explicit, completely over the line, and had no place on the air. We can’t afford to let that happen again, so we pulled the show.”

Also, the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance (NASA) sent a letter to Upton and Markey to dispute the testimony of network officials during the Feb. 26 hearing on decency. The letter said Fox, NBC and ABC told members that affiliates had the right to refuse programming and cited excerpts from the networks’ affiliation agreements supporting the claim. NASA told members that despite the networks’ claims, other provisions in the affiliation agreements undercut the ability of affiliates to refuse programming.