[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1436-E1437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       INTRODUCING THE PARENTAL CHOICE IN TELEVISION ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 13, 1995

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today, Representatives Jim Moran, Dan 
Burton, John Spratt, and I, along with a long list of bipartisan 
cosponsors from every region of the United States, are introducing the 
Parental Choice in Television Act of 1995.
  We are introducing this bill with the intention of offering it as an 
amendment when the telecommunications bill comes to the House floor in 
July.
  It is supported by a broad coalition of groups from the PTA to the 
AMA.
  It is supported by 90 percent of the American public.
  In short, its time has come.
  In my view, there is no more compelling governmental interest in the 
United States today than providing families a healthy, safe environment 
in which to raise healthy, productive children.
  The fact is that television is one of the most important influences 
on our children's lives. We might wish it were different, but that 
won't bring us back to the 1950's when children watched relatively 
little TV. Today they watch 4 to 7 hours every day. ``Electronic 
teacher'' for many children, but what it teaches to young children is 
scary. The average American child has seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 
acts of violence by the time he or she leaves elementary school.
  Parents know what's going on. I have held six hearings over the last 
2 years on the subject of children and televised violence. In every 
hearing I have heard both compelling testimony about the harmful 
effects of negative television on young children, and about the efforts 
of industry to reduce gratuitous violence. But parents don't care 
whether the violence is gratuitous or not. When you have young children 
in your home, you want to reduce all violence to a minimum.
  That's why parents are not impressed with the temporary promises of 
broadcast executives to do better. Parents know that the good deeds of 
one are quickly undermined by the bad deeds of another.
  The pattern is familiar. Parents plea for help in coping with the 
sheer volume and escalating graphics of TV violence and sexual 
material. Congress expresses concern. The industry screams ``first 
amendment''. The press says they're both right, calling on Congress to 
hold off and calling on industry to tone things down.
  Meanwhile, parents get no help.
  Until parents actually have the power to manage their own TV sets 
using blocking technology, parents will remain dependent on the values 
and programming choices of executives in Los Angeles and New York who, 
after all, are trying to maximize viewership, not meet the needs of 
parents.
  In 1993, a USA Today survey found that 68 percent of its readers 
supported mandating the inclusion of V-chip technology in new TV sets. 
By 1996, a similar survey found that this number had risen to 90 
percent.
  Clearly the public is clamoring for solutions which make it easier to 
control their own TV sets.
  That is why we in the House intend to move forward with the V-Chip.
  We will give the industry a year to develop a ratings system and 
activate blocking technology on a voluntary basis, but if they fail to 
act, then the legislation will require the FCC to:
  First, form an advisory committee, including parents and industry, to 
develop a ratings system to give parents advance warning of material 
that might be harmful to children;
  Second, prescribe rules for transmitting those ratings to TV 
receivers, and
  Third, require TV set manufacturers to include blocking technology in 
new TV sets so that parents can block programs that are rated, of block 
programs by time or by program.

[[Page E 1437]]

  We want both the House and the Senate on record as favoring this 
simple, first-amendment friendly, parent-friendly, child-friendly 
solution to this ongoing problem.
  You will hear arguments from some that this technological way of 
dealing with the problem of TV violence is akin to ``Big Brother.'' 
It's exactly the opposite. It's more like ``Big Mother'' and ``Big 
Father.'' Parents take control.
  And we know this technology works. In this country, the Electronics 
Industries Association has already developed standards for it. In 
Canada, a test in homes in Edmonton proved that it works and works 
well.
  This is not a panacea. It will take some time for enough new sets to 
be purchased to have an impact on the Nielsen ratings and, therefore, 
an impact on advertisers. But its introduction in the cable world 
through set-top boxes is likely to be much more rapid. The cable 
industry has said that it is prepared to move forward with a V-chip 
approach as long as broadcasters move forward as well.
  And the Electronic Industries Association has already agreed to 
introduce the technology into sets that would allow up to four levels 
of violence or sexual material to be rated.
  Only the broadcasters have remained adamant in their opposition. They 
are opposed because the V-chip will work so well, not because it won't 
work. It will take only a small number of parents in key demographic 
groups using the V-chip to test the willingness of advertisers to 
support violent programming.
  Parents will have the capacity to customize their own sets--to create 
their own private safe harbor--to protect their own children as they 
see fit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.
  

                          ____________________