Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. I want to praise your leadership on this issue. I think our Committee's work has gotten the attention of FCC Chairman Powell and the Bush Administration. I certainly welcome Chairman Powell's newfound concern with the level of sex and violence on television and in enforcing the agency's indecency rules. "Better late than never" as the old saying goes.

Just two weeks ago, Members on both sides of the aisle expressed outrage over the use of certain unacceptable language on broadcasts by Fox and NBC.

Some of us had hoped that the onslaught of indecent broadcasts would be curbed by that hearing and the potential for legislation to increase penalties for indecent broadcasts. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

A few days later, Americans were treated to a halftime show at the Super Bowl, which many, including myself, found patently offensive. Others have noted that the CBS network displayed remarkably poor judgment in airing violent commercials during Super Bowl hours where they knew that children were in the television audience.

Even more disturbing is the seeming indifference of several network executives to these concerns. At our last hearing, I noted that we could accomplish little unless the Committee brought before it the executives of the major television and radio networks. This problem of too much sex and violence in broadcasting can only be addressed if the industry itself is willing to examine its practices and find solutions.

Unfortunately, many of the network and radio executives have declined the Chairman's invitation to appear today. I can conclude only that they are insufficiently aware of the seriousness of concern on both sides of the aisle, and are indifferent to the legislation before us.

I am not surprised that they are indifferent to the legislation. While I was pleased to cosponsor your bill, Mr. Chairman, to raise penalties for obscene and indecent broadcasts from $27,500 to $275,000, it appears that these executives consider these penalties nothing more than "lunch money" -- a small cost of doing business.

And why shouldn't they? Here's the revenue figures for the trailing twelve months for the companies that own the major networks: General Electric -- $134 billion; Disney -- $27 billion; Viacom -- $26 billion; NewsCorp -- $23 billion. I think it is also worth noting that Clear Channel, a frequent violator of the FCC's indecency rules, had revenues of $9 billion.

The new fines established in the legislation before this Committee would represent the following percent of revenues for these companies:

• General Electric/NBC - Zero point zero zero zero two percent;
• Disney/ABC, Viacom/CBS and Newscorp/FOX - Zero point zero zero one percent; and
• Clear Channel - Zero point zero zero three percent.

Or for a different perspective, even if the FCC were to fine Viacom/CBS the maximum penalty allowable under this bill for the shameless stunt during the halftime show, the executives of that company will sleep soundly knowing that they made nearly 10 times that amount with each 30 second Super Bowl ad.

I commend Mr. Karmazin from Viacom and Mr. Tagliabue from the NFL for coming here today to discuss these matters. But what should we do about those executives who declined your invitation? Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that the following three words may help to get their attention:

One, forfeiture: Perhaps the penalties in this legislation need to be more closely tied to the advertising revenues that the indecent broadcast generates. As long as the revenues from such broadcasts far exceed the penalties, this behavior will continue.

Two, revocation: My experience in fighting the recent battle over media ownership has taught me that potential loss of licenses is the best way to get a network's attention. The airways belong to the public, and are licensed subject to rules. If the rules are repeatedly broken, license revocation should be considered.

Three, renewals: Certainly, any and all indecency violations should be a major black mark on a licensee's record when that license comes up for renewal. The FCC should certainly be required to afford such violations substantial weight when determining whether a licensee should have its broadcast license renewed.

All three are worthy of consideration. I understand that Congress has been a reluctant body when legislating on the issue of speech. But we find ourselves faced with an industry that has failed to control itself, and an Administration that is either unwilling or unable to effectively enforce its rules. We must now act.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding these hearings. I also appreciate your willingness to invite the missing radio and television executives to a future hearing to consider these issues.