U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

53—260 

" ! COMMITTEE PRINT 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

S. PRT. 

2009

111–33 

GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF COMMITTEE 

REPORTS 

FOR THE USE OF THE STAFF 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

—— 

NOVEMBER 9, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, Colorado 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
[COMMITTEE PRINT] 

111TH CONGRESS " ! SENATE 1st Session 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
2 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(3) 

1The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to which was referred the bill 

(S. ———) to . . ., having considered the same, reports favorably thereon øwithout amendment 

or with amendments or with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute)¿ and recommends 

that the bill ø(as amended)¿ do pass. The matter in black brackets should reflect the Committee’s action on the measure. 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(4) 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
5 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(6) 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
7 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
8 

1 NENA Fact Sheet: Enhanced Wireless Emergency Communications: Implementation Process 

and Status, National Emergency Number Association (NENA), October 2001. 

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. 

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 purS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
9 

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. 

poses, 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. 

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 ExecuS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
10 

tive 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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
11 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
12 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(13) 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
14 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
15 

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. 

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 contentbased 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. 

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 chilS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
16 

dren. 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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(17) 

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 InterS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
18 

national 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:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
19 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(20) 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
21 

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: 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
22 

[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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
23 

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 estabS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
24 

lished 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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(25) 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
26 

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 ComS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
27 

merce. 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
28 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(29) 

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— 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
30 

(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 Chelsea Street Bridge in Chelsea, MA.Sen. Kerry 

Section 103 Web-based risk management data system ........ Sen. Kerry 

Section 503 Coast Guard to maintain LORAN-C Navigation 

System.

Sen. Kerry 

Section 705 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ......... Sen. Cantwell 

Section 707 Improved Coordination with tribal governments Sen. Cantwell 

Section 716 Vessel traffic risk assessments .......................... Sen. Stevens 

Section 717 Oil spill liability trust fund investment amount 

data.

Sen. Stevens 

Section 904 Data ..................................................................... Sen. Stevens 

Section 918 Fur Seal Act authorization ................................... Sen. Stevens 

Section 919 Study of relocation of Coast Guard Sector Buffalo facilities.Sen. Clinton 

* * * * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
31 

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 Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Senator Cantwell 

Sec. 814 Oil spill liability trust fund 

investment amount 

Senator Begich 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(32) 

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: . . .’’. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
33 

2 Because of length, only portions of the section-by-section analyses are shown in the examples). 

EXAMPLES 2

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 inS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
34 

tended 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
35 

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 relS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
36 

evant 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
37 

FIGURE 3—Authorization Levels—Continued 

(In $ millions) 

FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(38) 

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: 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
39 

YEAS—11 NAYS—11 

Mr. Stevens1 Ms. Snowe1

Mr. Burns Mr. Fitzgerald1

Mr. Lott Mr. Allen 

Mrs. Hutchison1 Mr. Hollings 

Mr. Brownback1 Mr. Inouye1

Mr. Smith Mr. Rockefeller 

Mr. Ensign Mr. Kerry1

Mr. Wyden Mr. Breaux1

Mrs. Boxer Mr. Dorgan 

Ms. Cantwell Mr. Nelson 

Mr. McCain Mr. Lautenberg 

1By 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. Inouye1 Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Rockefeller1 Ms. Snowe1

Mr. Kerry1 Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Breaux1 Mr. Fitzgerald1

Mr. Dorgan1 Mr. Ensign 

Mr. Wyden1 Mr. Allen 

Mrs. Boxer Mr. Sununu 

Mr. Nelson Mr. Lautenberg 

Ms. Cantwell 

Mr. McCain 

1By 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. Stevens1 Ms. Snowe1

Mr. Burns Mr. Fitzgerald1

Mr. Lott Mr. Allen 

Mrs. Hutchison Mr. Inouye1

Mr. Brownback Mr. Rockefeller1

Mr. Smith Mr. Kerry1

Mr. Ensign Mr. Breaux1

Mr. Sununu Mr. Dorgan1

Mr. Hollings Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Wyden1 Mr. Lautenberg 

Mrs. Boxer 

Ms. Cantwell 

1By proxy 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
40 

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. Stevens1 Ms. Snowe1

Mr. Burns Mr. Fitzgerald1

Mr. Lott Mr. Allen 

Mrs. Hutchison Mr. Hollings 

Mr. Brownback Mr. Inouye1

Mr. Smith Mr. Rockefeller 

Mr. Ensign Mr. Kerry1

Mr. Sununu Mr. Breaux1

Mr. Wyden1 Mr. Dorgan1

Mrs. Boxer1 Mr. Nelson 

Ms. Cantwell Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. McCain 

1By 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. Rockefeller1 Ms. Snowe1

Mr. Kerry1 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. Lautenberg1

1By 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. Hutchison1

Ms. Snowe1

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Smith 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
41 

Mr. Fitzgerald 

Mr. Ensign 

Mr. Allen 

Mr. Sununu1

Mr. Hollings 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Rockefeller1

Mr. Kerry1

Mr. Breaux 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mr. Wyden 

Mrs. Boxer 

Mr. Nelson 

Ms. Cantwell1

Mr. Lautenberg1

Mr. McCain 

1By proxy 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(42) 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(43) 

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; 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
44 

(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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
45 

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, repS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
46 

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). 

resenting 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. 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
47 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
48 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(49) 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
50 

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 ø$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 øfacilities¿ 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): 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
51 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

CHAPTER. 63. MAIL FRAUD

§ 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]

øSEC. 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— 

ø(A) prescribe minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels (as well as for co-channels and first- and secondadjacent channels); and 

ø(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). 

ø(2) The Federal Communications Commission may not— 

ø(A) eliminate or reduce the minimum distance separations 

for third-adjacent channels required by paragraph (1)(A); or 

ø(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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
52 

ø(3) Any license that was issued by the Commission to a lowpower 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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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— 

ø(A) an opportunity for the public to comment on interference; and 

ø(B) independent audience listening tests to determine what 

is objectionable and harmful interference to the average radio 

listener. 

ø(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— 

ø(A) an analysis of the experimental program and field tests 

and of the public comment received by the Commission; 

ø(B) an evaluation of the impact of the modification or elimination of minimum distance separations for third-adjacent 

channels on— 

ø(i) listening audiences; 

ø(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; 

ø(iii) the transition to digital radio for terrestrial radio 

broadcasters; 

ø(iv) stations that provide a reading service for the blind 

to the public; and 

ø(v) FM radio translator stations; 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
53 

ø(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 

ø(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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(54) 

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 sectionby-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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
55 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
56 

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 priS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
57 

3This example could be further shortened by omitting the SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, as 

it essentially repeats the statement of purpose. 

vacy of affected individuals, or the paperwork required from such 

individuals and businesses. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS 3

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
58 

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). 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
59 

2 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654, (D.C. Cir. 1995), herein after ACT IV. 

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

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 twelveminute 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. 

Year 

No. of complaints received 

No. of programs reflected in 

such complaints 

No. of complaints denied 

or dismissed 

by year-end 

No. of complaints pending at yearend 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
60 

• 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: 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
61 

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). 4See 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. 

. . . 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

The following chart compares the Commission’s current fines to 

the various companies’ revenues. 

Station owner 

2002: Amount of 

fines (number of 

fines) 

Company revenue 

for 2002 

2003: Amount of 

fines (number of 

fines) 

Company revenues 

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

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
62 

6 See www.consumerunion.org/pub/core—telecom—and—utilities/000901.html 

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.’’ 

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: 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
63 

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. 

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

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
64 

8See 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. 9See L. Rowell Huesmann et al., Stability of Aggression Over Time and Generations, Developmental Psychology 20 (1984): 1,120–1,134. 

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

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
65 

10See 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. 11See 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
66 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
67 

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 TVY7 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
68 

12Kaiser Family Foundation, How Parents feel (and what they know) about tv, the v-chip, and 

the tv ratings system, (1999). 13Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents and the V-Chip 2001: A Kaiser Family Foundations Survey, (2001). 

14Testimony 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. 15 58 F. 3rd 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995) 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. 

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

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

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. 

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

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
69 

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. 18The 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. 22 Ibid., 665. 

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

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

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

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, 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
70 

23 Ibid., 666. 24 Ibid., 667. 

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

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 wellbeing 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
71 

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. 26Written 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. 27Written 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. 

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. 

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

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 responsiS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
72 

28 Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968). 29FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978). 30Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995). 

bility for [their] children’s well-being with laws designed to aid 

[in the] discharge of that responsibility.’’ 28

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. 

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 examS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
73 

31Testimony 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. 32Testimony of William Abbott, President, Foundation to Improve Television, before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Television Violence, July 12, 

1995. 33Sable Communications of California., Inc v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989). 34S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter, and Stanley Rothman, Prime Time: How TV portrays 

American Culture, (Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1994), p. 275. 

ple, 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

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

* * * * * * * 

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. 

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 vioS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
74 

35Quoted in Eric Barnouw, The Image Empire, p. 23. 36For 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. 

lent 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

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

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
75 

37 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992). 38 866 S.W.2d 250 (1993). 39Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). 

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 DavisKidd 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. 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
76 

40The 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. 43Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996). 44Playboy Entertainment Group v. United States, 945 F. Supp. 722 (1996). 

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

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. 

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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
77 

45Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 750–51. 

protect children from sexually explicit material, particularly in the 

context of a pervasive medium.45

Title II of S. 2056 is not intended to apply to premium or payper-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 effecS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
78 

46Testimony of Kevin Saunders, J.D., Ph.D. before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, February 27, 1997. p. 17 and 7. 

tiveness 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 contentbased 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. 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(79) 

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 routS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
80 

ing 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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
81 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(82) 

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. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(83) 

4The Elements of Style, 4th Ed., William Strunk, Jr., E.B. White, Roger Angell, Allyn & Bacon 

(2000). 

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: 

• 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 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
84 

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 . . ..’’. 

permanent law (codified). 5 See the 4th and 5th examples on 

pages 4 and 5. 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
(85) 

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’’ 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
86 

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 apS:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
87 

proach 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 

record@sec.senate.gov. 

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: 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
88 

• 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 record@sec.senate.gov). • 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: 

1 HEALTH CARE 

2 Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as our Nation wrestles 

3 with rising health care costs, the Senate will focus this 

4 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) 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)
89 

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 

Æ 

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\MISC09\REPTGUID.2

November 9, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)