[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 57 (Monday, April 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4187-S4189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 876. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
that the broadcast of violent video programming be limited to hours 
when children are not reasonably likely to comprise a substantial 
portion of the audience; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


           children's protection from violent programming act

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation to help 
parents limit the amount of television violence coming into their 
homes. We have reviewed this issue for decades and the analysis has not 
changed. All of the assurances and promises have been insufficient to 
protect our children from the dangerous influence of television 
violence.

[[Page S4188]]

  The bill that I introduce today requires a safeharbor time period 
during which broadcasters and basic cable programmers would not be 
permitted to transmit violent programming. The legislation directs the 
Federal Communications Commission to develop an appropriate safeharbor 
time period to protect television audiences that are likely to be 
comprised of a substantial number of children.
  We can argue all day long about which study reaches what conclusion 
about the impacts of television violence. But it defies common sense to 
believe that television violence does not impact our kids in some 
adverse way. Even the National Cable Television Association's own study 
on television violence states that the ``evidence of the harmful 
effects associated with televised violence'' is ``firmly established.''
  The recent events in Littleton, Colorado serve to highlight the sad 
and unfortunate fact that violence in our culture is begetting violence 
by our youths. violence is everywhere, it is readily accessible, and, 
to make matters worse, it is a source of corporate profits. A recent 
Washington Post article entitled, ``When Death Imitates Art,'' made 
this very point. It states:

       For young people, the culture at large is bathed in blood 
     and violence . . . where the more extreme the message, the 
     more over the top gruesomeness, the better. . . . Film, 
     television, music, dress, technology, games: They've become 
     one giant playground filled with accessible evil, darker than 
     ever before.

  While we know we can't regulate every market and every technology, 
and don't want to, we also know that the purveyors of violence must be 
held accountable in those instances when we can do so, consistent with 
our values and our Constitution. One way to do this is through 
television programming.
  This approach has already been successfully applied to television 
with respect to indecent programming, for which a safeharbor has been 
on the books since 1992--an approach that the D.C. Circuit has 
validated. I am confident that a similar result would be obtained if 
the video programming industry or First Amendment advocates were to 
attack this legislation that I introduce today. Indeed, prior 
legislative history also substantiates the constitutionality of my 
approach. In 1993, when I introduced my safeharbor legislation for the 
first time, the Commerce Committee held a hearing at which Attorney 
General Janet Reno and FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt both testified that 
the bill was constitutional.
  Now, I know that there will be opponents of this legislation who will 
state that the ratings system is working, that the V-chip is being 
deployed, and that our parents are being armed with the tools to 
protect their children from television violence. I also know that some 
Senators wrote a letter in July 1997, suggesting that the government 
forbear from regulation TV violence. But I'm not convinced. We should 
not forbear from protecting our children.
  Besides, the ratings system is incomplete. For example, one major 
broadcast network refuses to this day to use content ratings, and one 
major cable channel refuses to use any ratings at all. We all know what 
is going on here--money talks and violence sells. A recent article in 
USA Today illustrates this point. Entitled ``TV Violence for Profit,'' 
the article reports that some TV networks and basic cable channels 
increase the amount of violent programming during ``sweeps--the key 
months when Nielson measures audience size in every market.''
  Regardless, even if the industry is right that the V-Chip will 
eventually be the magic solution, we all know that thousands, and 
perhaps millions of families, will be without a V-chip for years. The 
V-chip is not required by the FCC to be manufactured in all television 
until January 1, 2000. Will every parent go to Circuit City on New 
Year's day and buy a new TV with a V-chip? Of course not. The V-Chip is 
not a complete solution. The only complete solution is a safeharbor.
  To conclude, I want to stress that this is an issue about 
accountability and responsibility. Those responsible for supplying 
video programming have been granted a public trust through the 
availability of broadcast spectrum and FCC licenses to deliver their 
programming to America's children. They should be responsible in their 
programming choices. We know, however, that market forces may encourage 
them to be irresponsible and transmit excessive violent programming. We 
in the Congress therefore have a responsibility to hold them 
accountable. This legislation does just that.
  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. 876

       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. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences the perception children have of 
     the values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Broadcast television, cable television, and video 
     programming are--
       (A) pervasive presences in the lives of all American 
     children; and
       (B) readily accessible to all American children.
       (3) Violent video programming influences children, as does 
     indecent programming.
       (4) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming at a young age have a higher 
     tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later 
     in life than those children not so exposed.
       (5) Children exposed to violent video programming are prone 
     to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior and 
     therefore to imitate such behavior.
       (6) Children exposed to violent video programming have an 
     increased fear of becoming a victim of violence, resulting in 
     increased self-protective behaviors, resulting in increased 
     self-protective behaviors and increased mistrust of others.
       (7) There is a compelling governmental interest in limiting 
     the negative influences of violent video programming on 
     children.
       (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     channeling programming with violent content to periods of the 
     day when children are not likely to comprise a substantial 
     portion of the television audience.
       (9) Because some programming that is readily accessible to 
     minors remains unrated and therefore cannot be blocked solely 
     on the basis of its violent content, restricting the hours 
     when violent video programming is shown is the least 
     restrictive and most narrowly tailored means to achieve a 
     compelling governmental interest.
       (10) Warning labels about the violent content of video 
     programming will not in themselves prevent children from 
     watching violent video programming.
       (11) Although many programs are now subject to both age-
     based and content-based ratings, some broadcast and non-
     premium cable programs remain unrated with respect to the 
     content of their programming.
       (12) Technology-based solutions may be helpful in 
     protecting some children, but may not be effective in 
     achieving the compelling governmental interest in protecting 
     all children from violent programming when parents are only 
     able to block programming that has in fact been rated for 
     violence.
       (13) Technology-based solutions will not be installed in 
     all newly manufactured televisions until January 1, 2000.
       (14) Even though technology-based solutions will be readily 
     available, many consumers of video programming will not 
     actually own such technology for several years and therefore 
     will be unable to take advantage of content based ratings to 
     prevent their children from watching violent programming.
       (15) In light of the fact that some programming remains 
     unrated for content, and given that many consumers will not 
     have blocking technology in the near future, the channeling 
     of violent programming is the least restrictive means to 
     limit the exposure of children to the harmful influences of 
     violent programming.
       (16) Restricting the hours when violent programming can be 
     shown protects the interests of children whose parents are 
     unavailable, are unable to supervise their children's viewing 
     behavior, do not have the benefit of technology-based 
     solutions, are unable to afford the costs of technology-based 
     solution, or are unable to determine the content of those 
     shows that are only subject to age-based ratings.

     SEC. 3. 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. 715. 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 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

[[Page S4189]]

     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, 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) Distribute Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `distribute' means to send, transmit, retransmit, telecast, 
     broadcast, or cablecast, including by wire, microwave, or 
     satellite.''.

     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 715 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section 3 of this 
     Act) and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall take 
     effect 1 year after the regulations are adopted by the 
     Commission.
                                 ______