[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 159 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15153-S15155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the discussion 
that I gather a few of my colleagues here in the Senate began earlier 
in the day as a result of the fact that conferees have been appointed 
to deal with the telecommunications bills that have passed both the 
Senate and the other body. These are very important bills dealing with 
a rapidly expanding, rapidly changing, ever more influential sector of 
not only our economy but our lives, that of telecommunications.
  I rise today not to talk about the corporate structures that are 
overlapping or the technical details of the revolutionary changes 
occurring in telecommunications but to talk about the content, talk 
about what is broadcast on these increasingly important parts of our 
lives and particularly to focus on the ever-present box, the 
television, in our homes and the impact that what is on television has 
on our kids and therefore on our society.
  The Senate and the House included in their telecommunications bills 
the so-called V chip, or violence chip, or C chip, as we like to call 
it, choice chip provisions that I was privileged to cosponsor with the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], but which was supported by a 
very strong bipartisan group in the Senate to create the technical 
capacity in parents and viewers generally to have some control over 
what comes through the television screen and affects our kids and also 
to require the industry to create a rating 

[[Page S 15154]]
system that would make it easier for a parent or anyone to block out 
shows either rated as too violent or containing lewd material, language 
or scenes or otherwise--all of that I think an expression of what I am 
hearing and I would guess the occupant of the chair, the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, is hearing from his constituents in New Hampshire, 
that what we are seeing on television is becoming ever more morally 
questionable; so much sexually inappropriate material is working its 
way into what is known as the family viewing hours from 7 to 9 in the 
evening, and it is having an effect on our kids.
  I find over and over as I talk to parents in Connecticut that they 
will say to me: Please do something about the violence and sex and lewd 
language on television and movies and music and video games because all 
of this is making us feel as if we are in a struggle with these other 
great, very powerful entertainment forces in our society to effect the 
growth and maturation of our own kids.
  They say to me, ``You know, we're trying to give our kids values. 
We're trying to give them a sense of priorities and discipline, and 
then the television music, movies, video games come along and seem to 
be competing with the values we're trying to give our kids. So please 
try to help.'' And the V chip component of these two telecommunications 
bills is critical to that effort. And I hope that the conferees will 
keep the V chip component in there.
  I know that the television industry is lobbying against it. But it is 
not censorship. It is really about citizenship. It is really about the 
television industry upholding its responsibility to the community. And 
it is about empowering parents and viewers generally to at least have 
some greater opportunity to control what is coming through the 
television screen into their homes affecting their children and their 
families. And it may in some sense, in doing that, make it easier for 
those of us who are viewers to express our opinions by what we are 
watching and what we are blocking out to the networks that we want 
better programming. We want programming that better reflects the values 
of the American people, which too much programming today simply does 
not.
  Mr. President, I want to now focus for a moment on another arena in 
which this struggle to upgrade the television and to hope that it can 
do something other than downgrading or degrading our culture and 
affecting our kids; and that is to call the attention of my colleagues 
to a significant debate taking place at the Federal Communications 
Commission about the responsibility of the broadcast television 
industry to serve the educational needs of America's children.
  What has stirred this debate is a ground breaking proposal being 
advocated by the Commission's Chairman, Reed Hundt, that would require 
a minimum amount of educational programming each week from each 
television station in America, 3 hours a week at first, growing 
ultimately to 5 hours.
  Before the FCC closes its public comment period on this subject next 
week, I want to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues why I 
believe this issue should be of such concern to us and the FCC and why 
I am so grateful to Chairman Hundt for taking the initiative here.
  I begin, Mr. President, with a little history. Congress has clearly 
been concerned about the content of television programming for our kids 
for a long time. Congress acted on that concern in 1990 when we adopted 
the Children's Television Act of 1990. And passing the legislation--
incidentally, it passed with overwhelming, again, bipartisan majorities 
in both Houses--Congress made an unambiguous statement about 
television's extraordinary potential as an educational resource and our 
displeasure at seeing that potential squandered. Congress also made an 
equally unambiguous statement about the responsibility of the 
broadcasters as what might be called public fiduciaries in meeting the 
educational needs of and potentials of our children.
  The fact is that the broadcasters have always been required the serve 
the public interest as a condition of receiving access to the public's 
airwaves, which is how they transmit to us, over airwaves that we, the 
public, own.
  The report language for the Children's Television Act of 1990 states 
explicitly that as part of that obligation--I quote --``broadcasters 
can and indeed must be required to render public service to children.''
  To meet that standard, the Children's Television Act set specific 
goals for the industry. We asked them to increase the number of hours 
of quality educational programming for children that are on the air. We 
chose, I think in good faith and wisely, appropriately at the time, not 
to mandate a set number of hours of programming, instead, to make an 
appeal through the legislation to the television industry and to hope 
and trust that they would meet with specific action to broad goals we 
articulated.
  Mr. President, I am sad to say that 5 years later it is clear that 
that trust has not been vindicated. Not only has there been no 
noticeable increase in the amount of quality children's programming on 
the air, but the fact is that the spirit of the act has been trod upon. 
Some local broadcast outlets have actually made a mockery of the act's 
requirements by publicly claiming that programs such as the ``Jetsons'' 
and ``Super Mario Brothers'' are educational. The ``Jetsons'' can be 
fun, but I would not say that it is educational.
  Mr. President, just yesterday The Washington Post reported on a study 
that was released by Dale Kunkel, a researcher at the University of 
California in Santa Barbara, that concluded--it was an update of an 
earlier 1993 report on the broadcasters' compliance with the Children's 
Television Act. The conclusion was that the law has had little effect 
on the quantity of educational programs to be found in 48 randomly 
selected TV stations around the country.
  Mr. Kunkel concluded that the vaguely written law allows broadcasters 
to engage in what he describes as ``creative relabeling'' of programs 
with dubious educational value. And there he points to stations that 
have claimed that the beloved, but usually not educational, ``Yogi 
Bear'' is an educational television program according to the study, and 
the claim by one station as to ``The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.''
  The researchers found that broadcasters reported airing an average of 
3.4 hours per week of educational shows last year, exactly the same 
amount as reported after the law became effective. But he said that the 
averages have been inflated by such shows as ``Yogi Bear,'' ``Sonic the 
Hedgehog,'' ``X-Men'' and other shows, including a Pittsburgh station 
that put ``America's Funniest Home Videos,'' an enjoyable show but not 
educational by my standards, into the education category.
  Another in Portland, ME, claimed ``Woody Woodpecker'' and ``Bugs 
Bunny and Friends'' were educational, and five stations listed the 
``Biker Mice From Mars'' as educational programs, obviously making a 
mockery of the intention of the act.
  To add insult to the mockery, I would offer this testimony, one 
recent report that said one station in Cincinnati went so far as to 
list two Phil Donahue shows as educational to improve its compliance 
with the Children's Television Act. And the content of those two shows 
were: The first one on ``Teen-Age Strippers and Their Moms'' and, 
second, ``Parents Who Allow Teenagers to Have Sex at Home,'' which is 
part of the normal fare on the daytime television talk shows, a subject 
for another series of comments in terms of the impact it is having on 
people who are watching and kids who watch, but surely not educational.
  Mr. President, this kind of callous disregard for kids is all too 
evident in what we are seeing coming over the television screen. As a 
study by the Center for Media Education detailed a couple years ago, 
the few educational programs that make it on the air have been too 
often ``ghettoized,'' you might say, in the early morning hours when 
few children are watching. Much of the programming that does see the 
light of day is largely used as a marketing vehicle for the greatest, 
latest toys. And a number of those action-oriented shows are tinged 
with what a recent study by the UCLA Center for Communication Policy 
called sinister combat violence, which as many parents can attest, 
study after study has shown, 

[[Page S 15155]]
often translates into imitative aggressive behavior.
  So let us be painfully candid about what seems to be happening here. 
Rather than serving the public interests, the industry has too often 
been serving our kids garbage. And it has an effect on them in our 
society. We have given the broadcast networks, their affiliates and 
independent local stations, use of the public airwaves, and they have 
not used those airwaves well.
  Too often our children have been subjected to a diet featuring ever 
larger helpings of morally questionable programs meant for adults that 
are appearing at hours when children and families are watching, and 
children's shows, as my friend, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, 
a leader in this effort, recently said, offer the kids' minds the 
nutritional value of a twinkie. Congressman Markey is right.
  In pursuing this path, the broadcasters, I think, are not only 
ignoring their legal obligations but, in a broader sense, their moral 
obligations to the larger community to which they belong. Knowing how 
powerful a median television is and knowing that the average young 
viewer watches 27 hours a week of television, the people who are 
running the American television industry, which, in a sense, is our 
Nation's electronic village, must recognize that they have a greater 
responsibility to wield their power carefully and constructively.
  This all really comes down, Mr. President, to a question of values. 
What are we saying to our kids and about our kids when we allow them to 
be subjected to the kind of lowest common denominator trash that they, 
too often, are forced or choose to watch on television? How can we 
expect our kids to appreciate the importance of education which parents 
are trying to convey to them and to recognize the necessity for self-
discipline, indeed, sometimes for sacrifice, in order to learn and to 
improve one's place in life when so much of what is on television 
treats knowledge as either irrelevant or worthy of disrespect?
  I stress the word ``we'' here, because our society, as a whole, I 
think, shares the blame for the status quo. We have ignored the 
warnings of people like Newt Minow, Peggy Charren, and dozens of other 
advocates for kids who have warned us about the impact of what is 
coming across television has on our children and our society.
  I have spoken about this subject before, Mr. President. No one is 
prepared to say violence on television and in the movies and music and 
video games is the cause of the ever greater violence in our society. 
No one is prepared to say that the way in which sexual behavior is 
treated so casually, without consequence, without warning, without 
awareness of a sense of responsibility, is the sole cause of some of 
the moral breakdown in our society, the moral breakdown of families, 
the outrageous epidemic of babies being born to women unmarried, 
particularly teenage women. But I cannot help but believe while the 
treatment of sex and violence on television is not the cause of those 
two fundamental problems our society is threatened with, it has been a 
contributor, and, in that sense, we all share some responsibility for 
making it better, including those at the Federal Communications 
Commission who have not done as much as they could have up until now 
and now have the opportunity, thanks to the proposal that Reed Hundt 
has made to begin a new era.
  This proposal would make significant changes in the rules 
implementing the Children's Television Act, which, taken as a whole, 
would guarantee that the broadcasters know exactly what is expected of 
them in terms of meeting their obligations to serve the needs of our 
kids. The demands are modest; some have even said too modest. They 
should not put an undue burden on the television industry. Indeed, the 
FCC proposal proves that this is not an either/or equation, that we can 
be both sensitive to the educational needs of our children and the 
economic needs of the broadcast industry.
  In drafting these proposals, Chairman Hundt has been guided by the 
precept that we should do whatever we can to enable the market to work 
more efficiently. For instance, the proposal would require that each 
identify what programs are deemed educational and to alert parents 
about the air time, time in which those shows would be on the air.
  Such a requirement should help stimulate demand for more and better 
children's programming, without putting a hardship on the industry. The 
new rules would also ask stations to enhance parental access to their 
children's television reports. This requirement would make it easier 
for parents rather than the Government to enforce compliance with the 
law.
  In the end, though, I must say that I share Reed Hundt's judgment 
that regardless of the changes, the market will probably continue to 
underserve children unless the FCC steps in and explicitly requires a 
commitment from the broadcast industry to provide some minimal amount 
of programming every week for our kids.
  The competitive pressures seem to be so great in the industry that 
one broadcast outlet will not unilaterally arm itself with educational 
programming and risk giving ground to a rival.
  So I think the best solution will be to guarantee a level playing 
field and assure that no broadcaster is put at a disadvantage by 
offering quality children's programming. This proposal, for a minimum 
of 3 hours a week educational programming for kids, I think will create 
that level playing field.
  The solution the Commission is considering is more than fair. As 
Peggy Charren has pointed out, the broadcasters claim they are already 
airing an average of more than 3 hours a week of educational 
programming. Assuming that is true, they should have no problem 
whatsoever in meeting the 3-hour obligation that Chairman Hundt is 
proposing.
  On the other side, if implemented, this proposal will present 
families, especially those without access to cable, with a real 
positive alternative to the growing level of offensive and vacuous 
programming on the air today. In other words, it will give families an 
oasis in what too often has been the intellectual and moral desert of 
contemporary television.
  That relief is something that parents want. I referred earlier to 
informal conversations I have had with parents in Connecticut, but to 
make it somewhat more scientific, in a recent poll, 82 percent of those 
surveyed said that there is not enough educational programming on 
television today, and nearly 60 percent supported a minimum requirement 
of broadcasters to show at least 1 hour a day of enriching programming, 
in effect, going well beyond the standard that Chairman Hundt is 
proposing at the FCC.
  Like those parents who answered that poll, it is my hope that these 
new rules will inspire more kids to become, if you will, power 
thinkers, power builders, power growers instead of Power Rangers.
  I was reminded of television's potential as an educational tool in a 
study released this spring by John Wright of Aletha Huston of the 
University of Kansas. After working with 250 low-income preschoolers, 
the researchers found that children who regularly viewed educational 
programming not only were better prepared for school but actually 
performed better on verbal and math tests, and that is what this is all 
about.
  The FCC will be making a decision on this proposal probably next 
month, and the outcome, unfortunately, is uncertain. I hope that my 
colleagues and members of the public, parents, advocates for children, 
will let the Federal Communications Commission know where they stand; 
that we remain in Congress committed to the Children's Television Act 
and the principle of serving the public interest; that our children 
deserve something better from television than a choice between ``Dumb 
and Dumber.''
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. It strikes me, looking at 
the Presiding Officer, that I should make clear his years in television 
only contributed to the well-being and intellectual awareness of those 
who watched his shows.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________