[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1670-S1671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 363. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
that violent video programming is limited to broadcast after the hours 
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion 
of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its 
violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means 
specifically on the basis of that content; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


         the children's protection from violent programming act

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation that will 
help parents limit the amount of television violence coming into their 
homes. As my colleagues know well, Congress has been studying this 
issue for 40 years and the issues have not changed. Recent press 
reports continue to validate my concerns that all the talk and promises 
have yielded nothing but the status quo, and efforts to encourage the 
industry to police itself continue to yield meager results.
  Enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 marked the second 
time Congress has passed legislation to encourage the entertainment 
industry to limit the amount of violence seen on television. The first 
time was the effort in the late 1980's led by our former colleague from 
Illinois, Paul Simon. Senator Simon's approach, the Television Program 
Improvement Act, was designed to grant the industry a 3-year antitrust 
exemption to work together to adopt voluntary guidelines that would 
lead to reducing violence depicted in television programs. The result 
of this industry collaboration was announced in December 1992 with a 
statement of joint standards regarding the broadcasting of excessive 
television violence. In June 1993, the networks made a commitment that, 
before and during the broadcasting of programs that might contain 
excessive violence, the following announcement would be made: ``Due to 
some violent content, parental discretion is advised.'' The Independent 
Television Association, the trade group representing many of the 
television stations not affiliated with one of the networks, adopted a 
similar voluntary code. Subsequent studies detailed, however, that 
despite these voluntary guidelines, violence continued to rise.
  In 1993, therefore, I introduced my safe harbor bill for the first 
time. The Commerce Committee held one hearing in the 103d Congress and 
a second hearing during the 104th. The Commerce Committee reported my 
bill, S. 470, by a vote of 16 to 1. The hearing record substantiates 
the constitutionality of my safe harbor approach, with both Attorney 
General Reno and Federal Communications Commission [FCC] Chairman Hundt 
on record as testifying that the safe harbor approach is 
constitutional. My efforts to bring my bill to the floor for a vote 
were repeatedly blocked.
  The second time, Congress legislated in this area was last year when 
the so-called V-Chip provision was incorporated into the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. I voted for this provision but had my 
doubts about its effectiveness. Once again, Congress relied on the 
industry to help parents limit the amount of violence. To make the V-
chip work, the 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.
  Pursuant to the 1996 act, all segments of the entertainment industry 
created the TV ratings implementation group--ratings group, headed by 
the Motion Picture Association of America [MPAA] president Jack 
Valenti. The group devised an age-based ratings system--not a content-
based system. The proposal has been met with widespread criticism as 
being too broad and vague for parents. I recommend that my colleagues 
read this past Saturday's New York Times February 22, 1997, to 
understand the confusion surrounding this issue. The age-based ratings 
system does not give parents sufficient information. Parents want the 
ability and the choice to block out specific content they find 
unsuitable for their children.
  So, here we are. Congress passes legislation designed to limit the 
amount of television violence, again relying on the industry to act 
responsibly. The voluntary ratings system proposed by the industry, 
called the TV parental guidelines, consists of the following six age-
based ratings:


                                  TV-Y

  All Children. This program is designed to be appropriate for all 
children. Whether animated or live action, the themes and elements in 
this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, 
including children from ages 2 through 6. This program is not expected 
to frighten younger children.


                                 TV-Y7

  Directed to older children. This program is designed for children age 
7 and above. It may be more appropriate for children who have acquired 
the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and 
reality. Themes and elements in this program may include mild physical 
or comedic violence, and may frighten children under the age of 7. 
Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program 
for their very young children.


                                  TV-G

  General Audience. Most parents would find this program suitable for 
all ages. Although this rating does not signify a program designed 
specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch 
this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no strong 
language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.


                                 TV-PG

  Parental Guidance Suggested. This program may contain some material 
that some parents would find unsuitable for younger children. Many 
parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme 
itself may

[[Page S1671]]

call for parental guidance. The program may contain infrequent coarse 
language, limited violence, some suggestive sexual dialogue and 
situations.


                                 TV-14

  Parents Strongly Cautioned. This program may contain some material 
that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of 
age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring 
this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age 
of 14 watch unattended. This program may contain sophisticated themes, 
sexual content, strong language, and more intense violence.


                                  TV-M

  Mature Audience Only. This program is specially designed to be viewed 
by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This 
program may contain mature themes, profane language, graphic violence, 
and explicit sexual content.
  I ask my colleagues, how will parents be able to block out a specific 
violent program based on this system?
  There are several problems with this approach.
  The 1996 Act envisioned that the ratings system, and consequently, 
the encoded programming, would allow parents to block specific 
programming content they found objectionable. Under the proposed age-
based ratings system, parents are unable to block specific violent 
programming. The proposed age-based ratings place the entertainment 
industry in the position of making the judgment about program 
suitability--not the parent. Moreover, one of the biggest problems with 
the proposed age-based ratings system is that it intermingles three 
types of programming content: violence, sexual material, and adult 
language. Thus it prevents parents from gaining any specific 
information about whether or not a show actually contains any violent 
depictions.
  The National PTA, the American Medical Association [AMA], the 
American Academy of Pediatrics [AAPA], the National Education 
Association [NEA], Children Now, the American Psychological Association 
[APA], the Coalition for America's Children, the Children's Defense 
Fund, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry [AACAP], 
the Family Research Council, the Foundation to Improve Television, and 
the Center for Media Education all have criticized the age-based 
ratings systems. Instead, they advocate ratings based on specific 
program content. These groups have criticized the proposed age-based 
ratings as too vague and broad for parents to decide what is right for 
their child to watch in their own home. In addition, the groups state 
that the ratings raise more questions than they answer.
  The AACAP was particularly critical of the ratings system, stating 
that:

       Programs portraying graphic and realistically appearing 
     violence, sex, horror, adult language, and illegal behavior 
     without social consequences increase the risk of dangerous 
     behaviors and aberrant emotional and intellectual development 
     by children and adolescents. . . . An age-based system, such 
     as the one now being proposed, carries the risk of missing 
     significant developmental variations in young people.

  The V-chip legislation was intended to empower parents with the 
ability to block out objectionable content-specific programming. The 
ratings system does not accomplish this objective. To correct this, I 
have decided to reintroduce my safe harbor legislation with the 
addition of a new provision. The new version requires confining the 
distribution of violent programming to hours of the day when children 
are not likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience unless 
the broadcasters adopt a content-specific ratings system that allows 
parents to block out violent programming. If the industry continues to 
insist upon the age-based ratings, then my safe harbor would apply for 
violent programming. It's a very simple proposition. Either the intent 
of the 1996 law is met and parents can block out objectionable content, 
or my safe harbor will ensure that violent programming is aired at 
hours later in the day to protect children from the harmful effects of 
violent programming.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 363

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Children's Protection from 
     Violent Programming Act''.

     SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING.

       Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 701 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 718. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO 
                   PROGRAMMING NOT SPECIFICALLY BLOCKABLE BY 
                   ELECTRONIC MEANS.

       ``(a) Unlawful Distribution.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person to distribute to the public any violent video 
     programming not blockable by electronic means specifically on 
     the basis of its violent content during hours when children 
     are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of 
     the audience.
       ``(b) Rulemaking Proceeding.--The Commission shall conduct 
     a rulemaking proceeding to implement the provisions of this 
     section and shall promulgate final regulations pursuant to 
     that proceeding not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Children's Protection from Violent 
     Programming Act. As part of that proceeding, the Commission--
       ``(1) may exempt from the prohibition under subsection (a) 
     programming (including news programs and sporting events) 
     whose distribution does not conflict with the objective of 
     protecting children from the negative influences of violent 
     video programming, as that objective is reflected in the 
     findings in section 551(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996;
       ``(2) shall exempt premium and pay-per-view cable 
     programming; and
       ``(3) shall define the term `hours when children are 
     reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
     audience' and the term `violent video programming'.
       ``(c) Repeat Violations.--If a person repeatedly violates 
     this section or any regulation promulgated under this 
     section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity 
     for hearing, immediately revoke any license issued to that 
     person under this Act.
       ``(d) Consideration Of Violations In License Renewals.--The 
     Commission shall consider, among the elements in its review 
     of an application for renewal of a license under this Act, 
     whether the licensee has complied with this section and 
     the regulations promulgated under this section.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Blockable by electronic means.--
       The term `blockable by electronic means' means blockable by 
     the feature described in section 303(x).
       ``(2) Distribute.--The term `distribute' means to send, 
     transmit, retransmit, telecast, broadcast, or cablecast, 
     including by wire, microwave, or satellite.''.

     SEC. 3. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS.

       (a) Report.--The Federal Communications Commission shall--
       (1) assess the effectiveness of measures undertaken under 
     section 718 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 718) 
     and under subsections (w) and (x) of section 303 of that Act 
     (47 U.S.C. 303(w) and (x)) in accomplishing the purposes for 
     which they were enacted; and
       (2) report its findings to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the United States and the 
     Committee on Commerce of the United States House of 
     Representatives, with 18 months after the date on which the 
     regulations promulgated under section 718 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section 2 of this 
     Act) take effect, and thereafter as part of the biennial 
     review of regulations required by section 11 of that Act (47 
     U.S.C. 161).
       (b) Action.--If the Commission finds at any time, as a 
     result of its assessment under subsection (a), that the 
     measures referred to in subsection (a)(1) are insufficiently 
     effective, then the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding to prohibit the distribution of violent video 
     programming during the hours when children are reasonably 
     likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience.
       (c) Definitions.--Any term used in this section that is 
     defined in section 718 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 718), or in regulations under that section, has the 
     same meaning as when used in that section or in those 
     regulations.

     SEC. 4. SEPARABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or any provision of an 
     amendment made by this Act, or the application thereof to 
     particular persons or circumstances, is found to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act or that 
     amendment, or the application thereof to other persons or 
     circumstances shall not be affected.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The prohibition contained in section 718 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section 2 of this 
     Act) and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall take 
     effect 1 year after the regulations are adopted by the 
     Commission.
                                 ______