[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1565-E1566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   INTRODUCING THE MARKEY-MORAN-BURTON-SPRATT AMENDMENT ON PARENTAL 
                BLOCKING OF TV SHOWS THAT HARM CHILDREN

                                 ______


                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 31, 1995
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing into the Record the 
Markey-Moran-Burton-Spratt amendment on parental blocking of TV shows 
that harm children as submitted to the House Rules Committee. We are 
introducing this amendment on behalf of a diverse coalition of parents, 
teachers, elementary school principals, school psychiatrists, churches, 
pediatricians, doctors, and civic organizations working to combat 
violence in our homes, our schools, and on the streets.
  Our request is their request--that the rule for consideration of H.R. 
1555 make in order the Markey-Moran-Burton-Spratt amendment to promote 
the health and welfare of children by including in TV sets technology 
that parents can use to manage and reduce the flood of violent, sexual 
and indecent material delivered to young children over the television 
set.
  This request is bipartisan, as you will note from today's witnesses 
and from the signatures on the letter we have delivered to you, Mr. 
Chairman, in support of this amendment's consideration by the full 
House of Representatives.
  The subject of this amendment has received extensive consideration by 
the House of Representatives during five hearings on television 
violence held in the House Telecommunications Subcommittee in the last 
Congress and a similar number in the Senate.
  When I first began pressing this technological defense against TV 
violence in 1993, I introduced a bill with the support of 4 Republicans 
and 10 Democrats.

[[Page E 1566]]

  When Mr. Moran, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Spratt and I introduced a new 
bill in this Congress, 4 Republicans and 25 Democrats joined us.
  When a similar proposal was offered by Senator Conrad in June as an 
amendment to the Senate counterpart to H.R. 1555, it received the 
support of 32 Republicans and 41 Democrats, passing 73-26.
  On July 10, the President of the United States endorsed this 
approach, calling the V-chip ``a little thing but a big deal''.
  And as you know, the letter we delivered today includes 19 
Republicans and 23 Democrats.
  So this is a subject of intense interest receiving broad support from 
both parties.
  It is supported by huge majority of the American public, with some 
polls and reader surveys putting support as high as 90 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, its time has come.
  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 five 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.
  Mr. Chairman, here is what the amendment would do:
  First, we will give the industry a year to develop a ratings system 
and activate blocking technology on a voluntary basis. 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; Please note that the government does 
not do the ratings.
  Second, require that any ratings implemented by a broadcaster be 
transmitted 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.
  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.
  

                          ____________________