[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E368-E369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        OFFICER BRIAN GIBSON TAX FREE PENSION EQUITY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 1997

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Officer Brian Gibson 
Tax Free Pension Equity Act of 1997, a bill which will allow the 
survivors of a Federal or local law enforcement officer killed in the 
line of duty to receive that officer's pension tax free.
  This legislation bears the name of Officer Brian Gibson, a brave 
police officer, a hero recognized as a model by his peers, an example 
for all who wear a police officer's badge anywhere, and a District of 
Columbia resident who was laid to rest on February 10 after being 
fatally shot in the line of duty. Officer Gibson was a devoted family 
man who left a wife, Mrs. Tracie Gibson, and two children. He graduated 
from H.D. Woodson High School in the District. Officer Gibson was a 
family man devoted to his wife, his children, his family, his 
community, his city, and his Police Department. I name this bill for 
Officer Gibson to help us remember him and all officers who die in the 
line of duty, and to help young men understand the meaning of courage, 
manhood, service, and family.
  Current Federal tax law allows officers who retire on disability to 
collect disability payments tax free. However, Officer Gibson's family 
must pay taxes on the survivor benefits of his pension. This disparate 
tax treatment is unfair because whether an officer retires on 
disability or is killed, that officer's family loses a wage earner, and 
in many instances, the family's sole wage earner.
  This bill is retroactive to taxable year 1997 to enable Officer 
Gibson's young family and the survivors of other officers killed in the 
line of duty in 1997 to begin receiving their survivor benefits free of 
Federal income taxation. For the average officer's family, this bill 
could mean 28 percent more money in survivor benefits. The police 
families who have lost their loved ones in police service have lost the 
irreplaceable. I urge my colleagues to support the Officer Brian Gibson 
Tax Free Pension Equity Act and afford the families of our slain law 
enforcement officers the same tax free treatment in survivor benefits 
we have already granted to officers who retire on disability.

     BILL TO ENCOURAGE THE IMPROVEMENT OF TV RATINGS MARCH 4, 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 1997

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill, along with 
Representatives Burton, Spratt, Moran, and others, to encourage the 
television industry to add content labels to the age-based TV ratings. 
Additional original cosponsors of ``The Children's Protection from 
Violent Programming Act'' include Representatives Greenwood, Klink, 
Poshard, Kennedy, J., Tauscher, DeFazio, Hinchey, Filner, and Hooley.
  The ratings system proposed by the TV industry last December has 
proved to be inadequate. It fails to inform parents of objectionable 
content, and it frustrates the use of blocking categories because they 
are so broad as to be useless. The V-chip law was intended to give 
parents the ability to block shows on the basis of violent, sexual, or 
profane content. Instead, the ``V'' for violence disappeared into the 
industry committee that developed the ratings system and has not been 
sighted since. We need to return to a content-based system.
  This point has been made to the industry in every conceivable way--in 
private meetings, in academic research, in focus groups, in newspaper 
editorials--yet the industry continues to turn a deaf ear, sticking 
stubbornly to a system that is convenient for the industry, but 
condescending and contradictory to parents.
  After all, who is raising our kids? Not Hollywood, not the 
broadcasters, not the cable industry. Parents, not corporations, are 
raising our kids. If we don't listen to them, the system is indeed a 
mess.
  The system is condescending because it tells parents that ``Hollywood 
knows best'', that some industrial Big Brother will decide whether a 
show is appropriate for your child's age group. Parents don't want this 
decision left to a corporate executive. We have left the era of ``Leave 
It To Beaver'' and entered the era of ``Beavis and Butthead.'' Instead 
of three channels, we have dozens, with more coming through the miracle 
of digital compression, satellites, and telecomputers. Today's parents 
want specific information about the level of violent or sexual material 
distributed in the form of entertainment to their home, so that they 
can decide for themselves what is appropriate for their own children to 
see on their own family TV set.
  The system is contradictory because, on the one hand, it requires an 
executive to examine the show for the level of violence, sex, or 
language, but on the other hand, it denies that information to parents. 
Instead, everyone is asked to engage in a game of ratings Hide-and-Go-
Seek where the executive disguises what he knows by throwing it into a 
giant category called ``TV-PG''.
  In fact, an estimated two-thirds to three-quarters of all television 
programming is being tossed into this Black Hole called ``TV-PG.'' What 
at first blush appears to be a six category system is, for most 
purposes, just this one category. It swallows up material that ranges 
across the entire spectrum of TV programming, from mild to graphic, 
from silly to

[[Page E369]]

sick, from profound to profane. The clips that you will be shown today 
by the organization Children NOW make this point very well. ``TV-PG'' 
has, unfortunately, come to stand for ``Too Vague--Parents Give Up.'' 
This is the core of the problem. This is the reality that the industry 
has, so far, refused to face.
  Clearly, parents want and deserve more information than they are 
getting from these general age-based icons. The head of one of our 
Nation's largest broadcasting undertaking, Mr. Earvin Duggan of the 
Public Broadcasting System, put it well in his recent letter to the 
committee:
  ``We who serve the television audiences should provide more 
information about program content rather than less. The ratings system 
recently adopted by commercial broadcasters and cable is, in our 
judgment, to a vague, imprecise and grudging in the information it 
provides.''
  Fortunately, we do not need to reinvent the ratings wheel. The 
industry's proposal can be made acceptable to most critics by simply 
adding content descriptors to the age-based icons. ``TV-PG'' would 
become ``PG-V'', with the ``V'' indicating violence. Such content-
descriptors are already widely used by the American cable industry in 
the HBO-Showtime system. We already have more than 3 years of 
experience with this system on three major cable networks, and more 
than a decade of experience on HBO. The president of Showtime will give 
testimony later today about the positive reaction to this system, both 
by his subscribers and by the employees who must preview the shows, and 
attach the ratings. This approach gives parents the information they 
want and need without abandoning the progress represented by the 
industry's efforts to date.
  Adding content-descriptors to the industry's age-based icons is 
clearly the outline of a solution. PBS is willing to do it; four cable 
networks are already doing it; it is time for everyone to move in this 
direction.
  Nevertheless, we must be realistic about the industry's 
intransigence. We must ask ourselves what can be done to help parents 
if the industry refuses to reconsider voluntarily its ineffective 
system.
  To that end, I am introducing, along with Representative Dan Burton 
and others, the House version of Senator Hollings' bill (S. 363) to 
encourage, but not force, distributors of television programming to add 
specific warnings for violence to the vague age-based ratings already 
proposed. The legislation does not require content descriptors. If a 
broadcaster chooses not to send them to parents, that's his right. But 
under this bill, he would no longer be able to air that unlabeled show 
during hours when children comprise a substantial part of the audience. 
it's his choice. If he includes the content descriptors, he can air the 
show regardless of the number of kids who may be watching. If he 
doesn't, then he can only air the show when kids are not likely to be 
watching.
  We think this is a fair trade. Parents want a content-based ratings 
system. Just last Saturday the New York Times poll concluded that 69 
percent of parents support this approach.
  There is no guarantee that parents will use the system, but there is 
a much greater likelihood they will use it if they have a clear warning 
of content that might harm their kids. And only through such ratings 
will parents be given reasonable options for blocking out the harmful 
programming using the V-chip.
  It is my hope that the industry will, ultimately, come to the 
realization that this ratings system is for parents and must meet their 
needs. Parents should also register their concerns by writing the 
Federal Communications Commission. The FCC record is open for initial 
public comment until April 8, and the FCC Chairman has announced his 
intention to hold a hearing at the Commission sometime after that. The 
introduction of this legislation should help to focus attention on the 
importance of this decision and hasten the day when the pleas of 
parents are finally heard.

                          ____________________