Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 69 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 69 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5195-S5214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION
ACT OF 1999

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 328

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate resumes
consideration of the Hollings amendment, No. 328, for the remaining 2
hours of debate, which is to be equally divided in the usual form. Who
yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than reinstituting the
family hour or the family viewing period. We had it during the
seventies, but we set it aside, just like the distinguished Senator
from Nevada was talking about with respect to censoring and making sure
these producers and broadcasters don't interfere with the creative
impulses of a writer or a producer in Hollywood. But when it comes to
the bottom line, they change that around. That is what we have, and it
is very, very difficult to make an overwhelming case.
We are again facing the same stonewalling that we viewed Sunday on
``Meet the Press,'' when the representative of the Motion Picture
Association, who has been doing this for 30-some years, said he did not
know the effect of TV violence on children and asked for another study.
We pointed out, of course, that is the way we started with Senator
Pastore, back in 1969, 30 years ago, and that is when we had the
Surgeon General's study. It has become worse and worse and worse over
the years.
Again this morning, in the Washington Post, an article says: ``Movie
Mogul Defends Hollywood.'' Mr. Edgar Bronfman states:

Violence ``is not an entertainment problem''. . . .

Mr. President, all we have to do is go to the May 3 issue of
Newsweek. I ask unanimous consent to print the article, ``Loitering on
the Dark Side'' in the Record.

[[Page S5196]]

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Loitering on the Dark Side--The Columbine High Killers Fed On A Culture
of Violence That Isn't About To Change

(By Steven Levy)

Now for the recriminations. Was the Colorado tragedy a
legacy of our technoculture: Doom, ``Natural Born Killers,''
hate-amplifying Web sites and pipe-bomb plans from the Net?
Or simply two teenage killers' ability to collect enough
ordnance to sustain a small army? Gathering the potential
culprits seems less an exercise in fixing liability than
tossing random darts at the violence-fixated cultural
landscape. After the massacre, there were calls to cancel two
upcoming Denver events: a Marilyn Manson concert and the
NRA's annual convention. Guilt has to be spread pretty widely
to make bedfellows of the androgynous Goth crooner and
Charlton Heston.
Still, we've got to look for answers to prevent further
massacres, if not to clear up the mystery in Littleton. The
Internet has been getting heat not only as a host for some of
the sick enthusiasms of the Trenchcoat Mafia, but as a
potential source of explosive information. Defenders of the
New rightfully note that criticizing the reach of the
increasingly pervasive Web is like blaming paper for bad
poetry. Still, it's undeniable that cyberspace offers
unlimited opportunity to network with otherwise unreachable
creepy people. What's worse is how the Net makes it easy to
succumb to the temptation to post anything--even Ubermensch
song lyrics or murderous threats--without the sure sanctions
that would come if you tried that in your geographical
community. The Internet credo is empowerment, and
unfortunately that also applies to troubled teens sticking
their toes into the foul water of hatemongering. As parents
are learning, the Net's easy accessibility to the
netherworlds is a challenge that calls, at the least, for a
measure of vigilance.
Hollywood is also a fat target. From Oliver Stone's lyric
depiction of random murder (rabidly viewed by the Columbine
killers) to stylish slaughter in ``The Matrix,'' violence is
the main cource on our entertainment menu. We are a nation
that comfortably embraces Tony Soprano, a basic-values type
of guy who not only orders hits but himself performs the
occasional whacking. The industry's defense is summarized by
Doug Richardson, who's scripted ``Die Hard II'' and ``Money
Train.'' ``If I were to accept the premise that the media
culture is responsible,'' he says, ``then I would be
surprised that the thousands of violent images we see don't
inspire more acts of violence.'' In other words, the sheer
volume of carnage is proof of its harmlessness.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It says:

Hollywood is also a fat target. Oliver Stone's lyric
depiction of random murder (rabidly viewed by the Columbine
killers) to stylish slaughter in ``The Matrix,'' violence is
the main course on our entertainment menu.

I ask unanimous consent that a Time magazine article, again this
month, entitled ``Bang, You're Dead,'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Bang, You're Dead

revenge fantasies are proliferating in movies and on tv. but should
they be blamed for littleton?

(By Richard Corliss)

The young and the older always eye one another across a
gaping chasm. Gray heads shake in perplexity, even in a week
of mourning, even over the mildest expressions of teen taste.
Fashion, for example. Here are these nice kids from suburban
Denver, heroically documenting the tragedy for TV, and they
all seem to belong to the Church of Wearing Your Cap
Backward. A day later, as the teens grieve en masse, oldsters
ask, ``when we were kids, would we have worn sweats and jeans
to a memorial service for our friends?'' And of course the
trench-coat killers had their own distinctive clothing:
Johnny Cash by way of Quentin Tarantino. Should we blame the
Columbine massacre on haberdashery?
No, but many Americans want to pin the blame for this and
other agonizing splatter fests on pop culture. Adults look at
the revenge fantasies their kids see in the `plexes, listen
(finally) to the more extreme music, glance over their kids'
shoulders at Druid websites and think, ``Seems repulsive to
me. Maybe pop culture pulled the trigger.''
Who wouldn't want to blame self-proclaimed Antichrist
superstar Marilyn Mason? Listen to Lunchbox, and get the
creeps: ``The big bully try to stick his finger in my chest/
Try to tell me, tell me he's the best/ But I don't really
give a good goddamn cause/ I got my lunchbox and I'm armed
real well / Next motherf***** gonna get my metal/ . . . Pow
pow pow.'' Not quite Stardust.
Sift through teen movies of the past 10 years, and you
could create a hindsight game plan for Littleton. Peruse
Heathers (1989), in which a charming sociopath engineers the
death of jocks and princesses. Study carefully, as one of the
Columbine murderers reportedly did, Natural Born Killers
(1994), in which two crazy kids cut a carnage swath through
the Southwest as the media ferociously dog their trail.
Sample The Basketball Diaries (1995), in which druggy high
schooler Leonardo DiCaprio daydreams of strutting into his
homeroom in a long black coat and gunning down his hated
teacher and half the kids. The Rage: Carrie 2 (now in
theaters) has jocks viciously taunting outsiders until one
girl kills herself by jumping off the high school roof and
another wreaks righteous revenge by using her telekinetic
powers to pulverize a couple dozen kids.
Grownups can act out revenge fantasies too. In Payback, Mel
Gibson dishes it out (pulls a ring out of a punk's nose,
shoots his rival's face off through a pillow) and takes it
(gets punched, switch-bladed, shot and, ick, toe-hammered).
The Matrix, the first 1999 film to hit $100 million at the
box office, has more kung fu than gun fu but still brandishes
an arsenal of firepower in its tale of outsiders against the
Internet droids.
In Littleton's wake, the culture industry has gone
cautious. CBS pulled an episode of Promised Land because of a
plot about a shooting in front of a Denver school. The WB has
postponed a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode with a
schoolyard-massacre motif. Movie-studio honchos, who
furiously resist labeling some serious adult films FOR ADULTS
ONLY, went mum last week when asked to comment on any
connection between violent movies and violent teen behavior.
That leaves us to explain things.
Revenge dramas are as old as Medea (she tore her sons to
pieces), as hallowed as Hamlet (seven murders), as familiar
as The Godfather. High drama is about the conflict between
shades of good and evil, often within the same person. But
it's easier to dream up a scenario of slavering evil and
imperishable good. This is the moral and commercial equation
of melodrama: the greater the outrage suffered, the greater
the justification for revenge. You grind me down at first; I
grind you up at last. This time it's personal.
Fifty years ago, movies were homogenous, meant to appeal to
the whole family. Now pop culture has been Balkanized; it is
full of niches, with different groups watching and playing
their own things. And big movies, the ones that grab $20
million on their first weekend, are guy stuff. Young males
consume violent movies, in part, for the same reason they
groove to outlaw music: because their parents can't
understand it--or stand it. To kids, an R rating for violence
is like the Parental Advisory on CDs: a Good Housebreaking
Seal of Approval.
The cultural gap, though, is not just between old and
young. It is between the haves and the self-perceived have-
nots of teen America. Recent teen films, whether romance or
horror, are really about class warfare. In each movie, the
cafeteria is like a tiny former Yugoslavia, with each clique
its own faction: the Serbian jocks, Bosnian bikers, Kosovar
rebels, etc. And the horror movies are a microcosm of ethnic
cleansing.
Movies may glamorize mayhem while serving as a fantasy
safety valve. A steady diet of megaviolence may coarsen the
young psyche--but some films may instruct it. Heathers and
Natural Born Killers are crystal-clear satires on
psychopathy, and The Basketball Diaries is a mordant portrait
of drug addiction. Payback is a grimly synoptic parody of all
gangster films. In three weeks, 15 million people have seen
The Matrix and not gone berserk. And Carrie 2 is a crappy
remake of a 1976 hit that led to no murders.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reading one sentence:

Sift through teen movies of the past 10 years, and you
could create a hindsight game plan for Littleton.

Another interesting article, ``Gunning for Hollywood,'' appeared in
U.S. News & World Report on May 10. I ask unanimous consent that the
column by John Leo be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Gunning for Hollywood

(By John Leo)

Every time a disaster like the Colorado massacre occurs,
Democrats want to focus on guns and Republicans want to talk
about popular culture. Much of this comes from actual
conviction, but economic interest often disguises itself as
principle. The Republicans can't say much about the gun
lobby, because they accept too much of its money. The
Democrats can't talk about Hollywood and the rest of the
entertainment industry, because that's where so much of their
funding comes from.
The gun and entertainment executives tend to patrol the
same familiar borders. Charlton Heston, head of the National
Rifle Association, offered some dubious arguments: An armed
guard at Columbine High School would have saved lives;
legalizing concealed weapons tends to lower crime rates.
Gerald Levin, the equally adamant head of Time Warner, said
he feared ``a new season of political opportunism and moral
arrogance intended to scapegoat the media.'' He raised the
specter of censorship, noting that Oliver Cromwell, ``the
spiritual forebear of Rev. Falwell,'' shut down the theaters
of 17th-century England on moral grounds.
Surely we can do better than this. We can talk about the
importance of gun control,

[[Page S5197]]

and we can talk about the impact on behavior of violence
portrayed in the media without suggesting that censorship is
any kind of solution.
This time around, a center of sorts seems to be forming.
Bill Bennett and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, familiar social
conservative voices on this issue, have been joined by Sens.
John McCain and Sam Brownback and, it seems, by the Clintons
and the Gores. Tipper Gore said that the entertainment media
bear some responsibility for the killings in Colorado. In a
radio address, President Clinton urged parents to ``refuse to
buy products'' which glorify violence.''
If more Republicans will talk about guns, maybe more
Democrats will ask their favorite media moguls to start
thinking harder about the social impact of the many awful
products they dump on the market.
``We want to appeal to their sense of responsibility and
citizenship and ask them to look beyond the bottom
line,''said Lieberman. There is talk of some sort of ``summit
meeting'' on violence. McCain plans a hearing this week on
how violence is marketed to children. For the long term, we
need a campaign appealing to pride and accountability among
media executives. Shame, too, says Lieberman.
Pointless violence is an obvious topic. In the dreadful Mel
Gibson movie Payback, a nose ring is yanked off, bringing
some of the nose with it. A penis is pulled off in the new
alleged comedy Idle Hands. Worse are the apparent connections
between screen and real-world violence. Michael Carneal's
shooting rampage in a Kentucky school was similar to one in a
movie he saw, The Basketball Diaries. In the film, the main
character dreams of breaking down a classroom door and
shooting six classmates and a teacher while other students
cheer. In Manhattan in 1997, one of the men who stomped a
parade watcher to death on St. Patrick's Day finished with a
line almost exactly like the one uttered by a killer in the
movie A Bronx Tale: ``Look at me--I'm the one who did this to
you.''
A damaging kind of movie violence is currently on display
in a very good new movie, The Matrix. Keanu Reeves's
slaughter of his enemies is filmed as a beautiful ballet.
Thousands of shells fall like snow from his helicopter and
bounce in romantic slo-mo off walls and across marble floors.
The whole scene makes gunning people down seem like a
wonderfully satisfying hobby, as if a brilliant ad agency had
just landed the violence account. What you glorify you tend
to get more of. Somebody at the studio should have asked,
``Do we really need more romance attached to the act of
blowing people away?''
Sadism for the masses. A generation or two ago, movie
violence was routinely depicted as a last resort. There were
exceptions, of course. But violence was typically something a
hero was forced to do, not something he enjoyed. He had no
choice. Now, as the critic Mark Crispin Miller once wrote,
screen violence ``is used primarily to invite the viewer to
enjoy the feel of killing, beating, mutilating.''
We are inside the mind and emotions of the shooter,
experiencing the excitement. This is violence not as a last
resort but as deeply satisfying lifestyle. And those who use
films purely to exploit and promote the lifestyle ought to be
called on it.
Some years ago, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Roman Catholic
archbishop of Los Angeles, was thought to be preparing a
speech calling for a tough new film-rating code. Hollywood
prepared itself to be appalled. But instead of calling for a
code, the cardinal issued a pastoral letter defending
artistic freedom and appealed to moviemakers to think more
about how to handle screen violence. When violence is
portrayed, he wrote, ``Do we feel the pain and dehumanization
it causes to the person on the receiving end, and to the
person who engages in it? . . . Does the film cater to the
aggressive and violent impulses that lie hidden in every
human heart? Is there danger its viewers will be desensitized
to the horror of violence by seeing it?''
Good questions. Think about it, Hollywood.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Mr. Leo's column cites that TV violence
has a definite effect on children.
Turning to the New Republic of May 17, Gregg Easterbrook in the New
Republic wrote another relevant article entitled, ``Watch and Learn.''
I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Section: Pg. 22.
Length: 3724 words.
Headline: Watch and Learn.
Byline: Gregg Easterbrook.
Highlight: Yes, the media do make us more violent.
Body: Millions of teens have seen the 1996 move Scream, a
box-office and home-rental hit. Critics adored the film. The
Washington Post declared that it ``deftly mixes irony, self-
reference, and social wry commentary.'' The Los Angeles Times
hailed it as ``a bravura, provocative send-up.'' Scream opens
with a scene in which a teenage girl is forced to watch her
jock boyfriend tortured and then disemboweled by two fellow
students who, it will eventually be learned, want revenge on
anyone from high school who crossed them. After jock boy's
stomach is shown cut open and he dies screaming, the killers
stab and torture the girl, then cut her throat and hang her
body from a tree so that Mom can discover it when she drives
up. A dozen students and teachers are graphically butchered
in the film, while the characters make running jokes about
murder. At one point, a boy tells a big-breasted friend she'd
better be careful because the stacked girls always get it in
horror films; in the next scene, she's grabbed, stabbed
through the breasts, and murdered. Some provocative send-up,
huh? The move builds to a finale in which one of the killers
announces that he and his accomplice started off by murdering
strangers but then realized it was a lot of more fun to kill
their friends.
Now that two Colorado high schoolers have murdered twelve
classmates and a teacher--often, it appears, first taunting
their pleading victims, just like celebrity stars do in the
movies--some commentators have dismissed the role of violence
in the images shown to the young, pointing out that horrific
acts by children existed before celluloid or the phosphor
screen. That is true--the Leopold-Loeb murder of 1924, for
example. But mass murders by the young, once phenomenally
rare, are suddenly on the increase. Can it be coincidence
that this increase is happening at the same time that
Hollywood has begun to market the notion that mass murder is
fun?
For, in cinema's never-ending quest to up the ante on
violence, murder as sport is the latest frontier. Slasher
flicks began this trend; most portray carnage from the
killer's point of view, showing the victim cowering,
begging, screaming as the blade goes in, treating each
death as a moment of festivity for the killer. (Many
killers seek feelings of power over their victims,
criminology finds; by revealing in the pleas of victims,
slasher movies promote this base emotion.) The 1994 movie
Natural Born Killers depicted slaying the helpless not
only as a way to have a grand time but also as a way to
become a celebrity; several dozen onscreen murders are
shown in that film, along with a discussion of how great
it makes you feel to just pick people out at random and
kill them. The 1994 movie Pulp Fiction presented hit men
as glamour figures having loads of interesting fun; the
actors were mainstream stars like John Travolta. The 1995
movie Seven, starring Brad Pitt, portrayed a sort of
contest to murder in unusually grotesque ways.
(Screenwriters now actually discuss, and critics comment
on, which film's killings are most amusing.) The 1995
movie The Basketball Diaries contains an extended dream
sequence in which the title character, played by teen
heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio, methodically guns down
whimpering, pleading classmates at his high school. A rock
soundtrack pulses, and the character smiles as he kills.
The new hollywood tack of portraying random murder as a
form of recreation does not come from schlock-houses.
Disney's Miramax division, the same mainstream studio that
produced Shakespeare in Love, is responsible for Scream and
Pulp Fiction. Time-Warner is to blame for Natural Born
Killers and actually ran television ads promoting this film
as ``delirious, daredevil fun.'' (After it was criticized for
calling murder ``fun,'' Time-Warner tried to justify Killers
as social commentary; if you believe that, you believe
Godzilla was really about biodiversity protection.) Praise
and publicity for gratuitously violent movies come from the
big media conglomerates, including the newspapers and
networks that profit from advertising for films that glorify
murder. Disney, now one of the leading promoters of violent
images in American culture, even feels that what little kids
need is more violence. Its Christmas 1998 children's movie
Mighty Joe Young begins with an eight-year-old girl watching
her mother being murdered. By the movie's end, it is 20 years
later, and the killer has returned to stalk the grown
daughter, pointing a gun in her face and announcing, ``Now
join your mother in hell.'' A Disney movie.
One reason Hollywood keeps reaching for ever-more-obscene
levels of killing is that it must compete with television,
which today routinely airs the kind of violence once
considered shocking in theaters. According to studies
conducted at Temple University, prime-time network (non-news)
shows now average up to five violent acts per hour. In
February, NBC ran in prime time the movie Eraser, not editing
out an extremely graphic scene in which a killer pulls a gun
on a bystander and blasts away. The latest TV movie based on
The Rockford Files, which aired on CBS the night of the
Colorado murders, opened with a scene of an eleven-year-old
girl in short-shorts being stalked by a man in a black hood,
grabbed, and dragged off, screaming. The Rockford Files is a
comedy. Combining television and movies, the typical American
boy or girl, studies find, will observe a stunning 40,000
dramatizations of killing by age 18.
In the days after the Colorado slaughter, discussion of
violent images in American culture was dominated by the
canned positions of the anti-Hollywood right and the mammon-
is-our-God film lobby. The debate missed three vital points:
the distinction between what adults should be allowed to see
(anything) and what the inchoate minds of children and
adolescents should see; the way in which important liberal
battles to win free expression in art and literature have
been perverted into an excuse for antisocial

[[Page S5198]]

video brutality produced by cynical capitalists; and the
difference between censorship and voluntary acts of
responsibility.
The day after the Colorado shooting, Mike De Luca, an
executive of New Line Cinema, maker of The Basketball
Diaries, told USA Today that, when kids kill, ``bad home
life, bad parenting, having guns in the home'' are ``more of
a factor than what we put out there for entertainment.''
Setting aside the disclosure that Hollywood now categorizes
scenes of movies stars gunning down the innocent as
``entertainment,'' De Luca is correct: studies do show that
upbringing is more determinant of violent behavior than any
other factor. But research also clearly shows that the
viewing of violence can cause aggression and crime. So the
question is, in a society already plagued by poor parenting
and unlimited gun sales, why does the entertainment industry
feel privileged to make violence even more prevalent?
Even when researchers factor out other influences such as
parental attention, many peer-reviewed studies having found
causal links between viewing phony violence and engaging in
actual violence. A 1971 surgeon general's report asserted a
broad relationship between the two. Studies by Brandon
Centerwall, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin,
have shown that the postwar murder rise in the United
States began roughly a decade after TV viewing became
common. Centerwall also found that, in South Africa, where
television was not generally available until 1975,
national murder rates started rising about a decade later.
Violent computer games have not existed long enough to be
the subject of many controlled studies, but experts expect
it will be shown that playing such games in youth also
correlates with destructive behavior. There's an eerie
likelihood that violent movies and violent games amplify
one another, the film and television images placing
thoughts of carnage into the psyche while the games
condition the trigger finger to act on those impulses.
Leonard Eron, a psychologist at the University of Michigan,
has been tracking video violence and actual violence for
almost four decades. His initial studies, in 1960, found that
even the occasional violence depicted in 1950s television--to
which every parent would gladly return today--caused
increased aggression among eight-year-olds. By the adult
years, Erons' studies find, those who watched the most TV and
movies in childhood were much more likely to have been
arrested for, or convicted of, violent felonies. Eron
believes that ten percent of U.S. violent crime is caused by
exposure to images of violence, meaning that 90 percent is
not but that a ten percent national reduction in violence
might be achieved merely by moderating the content of
television and movies. ``Kids learn by observation,'' Eron
says. ``If what they observe is violent, that's what they
learn.'' To cite a minor but telling example, the
introduction of vulgar language into American public
discourse traces, Eron thinks, largely to the point at which
stars like Clark Gable began to swear onscreen, and kids then
imitated swearing as normative.
Defenders of bloodshed in film, television, and writing
often argue that depictions of killing don't incite real
violence because no one is really affected by what they see
or read; it's all just water off a duck's back. At heart,
this is an argument against free expression. The whole reason
to have a First Amendment is that people are influenced by
what they see and hear: words and images do change minds, so
there must be free competition among them. If what we say,
write, or show has no consequences, why bother to have free
speech?
Defenders of Hollywood bloodshed also employ the argument
that, since millions of people watch screen mayhem and shrug,
feigned violence has no causal relation to actual violence.
After a horrific 1992 case in which a British gang acted out
a scene from the slasher movie Child's Play 3, torturing a
girl to death as the movie had shown, the novelist Martin
Amis wrote dismissively in The New Yorker that he had rented
Child's Play 3 and watched the film, and it hadn't made him
want to kill anyone, so what was the problem? But Amis isn't
homicidal or unbalanced. For those on the psychological
borderline, the calculus is different. There have, for
example, been at least two instances of real-world shootings
in which the guilty imitated scenes in Natural Born Killers.
Most telling, Amis wasn't affected by watching a slasher
movie because Amis is not young. Except for the unbalanced,
exposure to violence in video ``is not so important for
adults; adults can watch anything they want,'' Eron says.
Younger minds are a different story. Children who don't yet
understand the difference between illusion and reality may be
highly affected by video violence. Between the ages of two
and eight, hours of viewing violent TV programs and movies
correlates closely to felonies later in life; the child comes
to see hitting, stabbing, and shooting as normative acts. The
link between watching violence and engaging in violence
continues up to about the age of 19, Eron finds, after which
most people's characters have been formed, and video mayhem
no longer correlates to destructive behavior.
Trends in gun availability do not appear to explain the
murder rise that has coincided with television and violent
films. Research by John Lott Jr., of the University of
Chicago Law School, shows that the percentage of homes with
guns has changed little throughout the postwar era. What
appears to have changed is the willingness of people to fire
their guns at one another. Are adolescents now willing to use
guns because violent images make killing seem acceptable or
even cool? Following the Colorado slaughter, The New York
Times ran a recounting of other postwar mass murders staged
by the young, such as the 1966 Texas tower killings, and
noted that they all happened before the advent of the
Internet or shock rock, which seemed to the Times to absolve
the modern media. But all the mass killings by the young
occurred after 1950--after it became common to watch violence
on television.
When horrific murders occur, the film and television
industries routinely attempt to transfer criticism to the
weapons used. Just after the Colorado shootings, for
instance, TV talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell called for a
constitutional amendment banning all firearms. How strange
that O'Donnell didn't call instead for a boycott of Sony
or its production company, Columbia Tristar--a film studio
from which she has received generous paychecks and whose
current offerings include 8MM, which glamorizes the sexual
murder of young women, and The Replacement Killers, whose
hero is a hit man and which depicts dozens of gun murders.
Handguns should be licensed, but that hardly excuses the
convenient sanctimony of blaming the crime on the weapon,
rather than on what resides in the human mind.
And, when it comes to promoting adoration of guns,
Hollywood might as well be the NRA's marketing arm. An ever-
increasing share of film and television depicts the firearm
as something the virile must have and use, if not an outright
sexual aid. Check the theater section of any newspaper, and
you will find an ever-higher percentage of movie ads in which
the stars are prominently holding guns. Keanu Reeves, Uma
Thurman, Laurence Fishburne, Geena Davis, Woody Harrelson,
and Mark Wahlberg are just a few of the hip stars who have
posed with guns for movie advertising. Hollywood endlessly
congratulates itself for reducing the depiction of cigarettes
in movies and movie ads. Cigarettes had to go, the film
industry admitted, because glamorizing them gives the wrong
idea to kids. But the glamorization of firearms, which is far
more dangerous, continues. Today, even female stars who
otherwise consider themselves politically aware will model in
sexualized poses with guns. Ads for the new movie Goodbye
Lover show star Patricia Arquette nearly nude, with very
little between her and the viewer but her handgun.
But doesn't video violence merely depict a stark reality
against which the young need be warned? American society is
far too violent, yet the forms of brutality highlighted in
the movies and on television--prominently ``thrill'' killings
and serial murders--are pure distortion. Nearly 99 percent of
real murders result from robberies, drug deals, and domestic
disputes; figures from research affiliated with the FBI's
behavioral sciences division show an average of only about 30
serial or ``thrill'' murders nationally per year. Thirty is
plenty horrifying enough, but, at this point, each of the
major networks and movie studios alone depicts more
``thrill'' and serial murders annually than that. By
endlessly exploiting the notion of the ``thrill'' murder,
Hollywood and television present to the young an entirely
imaginary image of a society in which killing for pleasure is
a common event. The publishing industry, including some TNR
advertisers, also distorts for profit the frequency of
``thrill'' murders.
The profitability of violent cinema is broadly dependent on
the ``down-rating'' of films--movies containing extreme
violence being rated only R instead of NC-17 (the new name
for X)--and the lax enforcement of age restrictions regarding
movies. Teens are the best market segment for Hollywood; when
moviemakers claim their violent movies are not meant to
appeal to teens, they are simply lying. The millionaire
status of actors, directors, and studio heads--and the
returns of the mutual funds that invest in movie companies--
depends on not restricting teen access to theaters or film
rentals. Studios in effect control the movie ratings board
and endlessly lobby it not to label extreme violence with an
NC-17, the only form of rating that is actually enforced.
Natural Born Killers, for example, received an R following
Time-Warner lobbying, despite its repeated close-up murders
and one charming scene in which the stars kidnap a high
school girl and argue about whether it would be more fun to
kill her before or after raping her. Since its inception, the
movie ratings board has put its most restrictive rating on
any realistic representation of lovemaking, while sanctioning
ever-more-graphic depictions of murder and torture. In
economic terms, the board's pro-violence bias gives studios
an incentive to present more death and mayhem, confident that
ratings officials will smile with approval.
When r-and-x battles were first fought, intellectual
sentiment regarded the ratings system as a way of blocking
the young from seeing films with political content, such as
Easy Rider, or discouraging depictions of sexuality; ratings
were perceived as the rubes' counterattack against cinematic
sophistication. But, in the 1960s, murder after murder after
murder was not standard cinema fare. The most controversial
violent film of that era, A Clockwork Orange, depicted a
total of one killing, which was heard but not on-camera.
(Clockwork Orange also had genuine political content, unlike
most of

[[Page S5199]]

today's big studio movies.) In an era of runaway screen
violence, the '60s ideal that the young should be allowed to
see what they want has been corrupted. In this, trends in
video mirror the misuse of liberal ideals generally.
Anti-censorship battles of this century were fought on firm
ground, advocating the right of films to tackle social and
sexual issues (the 1930s Hays office forbid among other
things cinematic mention of cohabitation) and free access to
works of literature such as Ulysses, Story of O, and the
original version of Norman Mailer's The Naked and the
Dead. Struggles against censors established that
suppression of film or writing is wrong.
But to say that nothing should be censored is very
different from saying that everything should be shown. Today,
Hollywood and television have twisted the First Amendment
concept that occasional repulsive or worthless expression
must be protected, so as to guarantee freedom for works of
genuine political content or artistic merit, into a new
standard in which constitutional freedoms are employed mainly
to safeguard works that make no pretense of merit. In the new
standard, the bulk of what's being protected is repulsive or
worthless, with the meritorious work the rare exception.
Not only is there profit for the performers, producers,
management, and shareholders of firms that glorify violence,
so, too, is there profit for politicians. Many conservative
or Republican politicians who denounce Hollywood eagerly
accept its lucre. Bob Dole's 1995 anti-Hollywood speech was
not followed up by anti-Hollywood legislation or campaign-
funds strategy. After the Colorado murders, President Clinton
declared, ``Parents should take this moment to ask what else
they can do to shield children from violent images and
experiences that warp young perceptions.'' But Clinton was
careful to avoid criticizing Hollywood, one of the top
sources of public backing and campaign contributions for him
and his would-be successor, Vice President Al Gore. The
president has nothing specific to propose on film violence--
only that parents should try to figure out what to do.
When television producers say it is the parents' obligation
to keep children away from the tube, they reach the self-
satire point of warning that their own product is unsuitable
for consumption. The situation will improve somewhat
beginning in 2000, by which time all new TVs must be sold
with the ``V chips''--supported by Clinton and Gore--which
will allow parents to block violent shows. But it will be at
least a decade before the majority of the nation's sets
include the chip, and who knows how adept young minds will
prove at defeating it? Rather than relying on a technical fix
that will take many years to achieve an effect, TV producers
could simply stop churning out the gratuitous violence.
Television could dramatically reduce its output of scenes of
killing and still depict violence in news broadcasts,
documentaries, and the occasional show in which the horrible
is genuinely relevant. Reduction in violence is not
censorship; it is placing social responsibility before
profit.
The movie industry could practice the same kind of
restraint without sacrificing profitability. In this regard,
the big Hollywood studios, including Disney, look craven and
exploitative compared to, of all things, the porn-video
industry. Repulsive material occurs in underground porn, but,
in the products sold by the mainstream triple-X distributors
such as Vivid Video (the MGM of the erotica business),
violence is never, ever, ever depicted--because that would be
irresponsible. Women and men perform every conceivable
explicit act in today's mainstream porn, but what is shown is
always consensual and almost sunnily friendly. Scenes of rape
or sexual menace never occur, and scenes of sexual murder are
an absolute taboo.
It is beyond irony that today Sony and Time-Warner eagerly
market explicit depictions of women being raped, sexually
assaulted, and sexually murdered, while the mainstream porn
industry would never dream of doing so. But, if money is all
that matters, the point here is that mainstream porn is
violence-free and yet risque and highly profitable. Surely
this shows that Hollywood could voluntarily step back from
the abyss of glorifying violence and still retain its edge
and its income.
Following the Colorado massacre, Republican presidential
candidate Gary Bauer declared to a campaign audience, ``In
the America I want, all of these producers and directors,
they would not be able to show their faces in pubic'' because
fingers ``would be pointing at them and saying, `Shame,
shame.' '' The statement sent chills through anyone fearing
right-wing though-control. But Bauer's final clause is
correct--Hollywood and television do need to hear the words
``shame, shame.'' The cause of the shame should be removed
voluntarily, not to stave off censorship, but because it is
the responsible thing to do.
Put it this way. The day after a teenager guns down the
sons and daughters of studio executives in a high school in
Bel Air or Westwood, Disney and Time-Warner will stop
glamorizing murder. Do we have to wait until that day?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we include by reference--not printed in
the Record of course--the hearings of 1993, 1995, and 1997 which are
relevant today. In fact, they have been exacerbated by the events we
have not only seen in Colorado, but in Kentucky and Arkansas in the
various schools, but more particular, it has supported our case about
the industry, the broadcasters, the producers--by Hollywood.
Let's understand first the putoff we had and the stonewalling back in
1990 when Senator Paul Simon said: What we have to do really--let's not
rush into this.
We have been rushing in since 1969. But in 1989 and 1990, we could
not rush in, and we had to have a code of conduct. The reason they
could not get it was because of the antitrust laws. So we put in an
estoppel to the antitrust laws applying to this particular endeavor. We
had the standards for depiction of violence and television programs
issued by ABC, CBS, and NBC in 1992.
Mr. President, this is what the programmers themselves said:

However, all depictions of violence should be relevant and
necessary to the development of character or to the
advancement of theme or plot.

Going further:

Gratuitous or excessive depictions of violence are not
acceptable.

Mr. President, that is word for word our amendment. What we try to
bar is excessive, gratuitous violence during the family hour. It works
in the United Kingdom. It works in Belgium and in Europe. It works down
in Australia. It is tried and true and passes constitutional muster.
We had this problem develop with respect to indecency. Finally, the
Congress acted and we installed in law the authority and responsibility
for the Federal Communications Commission to determine the time period
of family hour, which has been determined from 6 in the morning to 10
in the evening, and they barred showing of indecency on television in
America. That has worked. It was taken to the courts. The lawyers
immediately went to work, but the lower court decision has been upheld
by the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General of the United States appeared at our hearing
before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and said she
thought it definitely would pass constitutional muster. We also had a
plethora of constitutional professors come in. The record is replete.
It is not haphazard.
Let me quote entertainment industry executives and apologists saying
just exactly what we say in our law:

Programs should not depict violence as glamourous--

I quote that from their own particular code of conduct--

Realistic depictions of violence should also portray the
consequences of that violence to its victims and its
perpetrators.

That was 1992. Let's find out what they did with the code of conduct.
In 1998, there was a study sponsored by the National Cable Television
Association. This is one of the most recent authoritative documents on
the entire subject. It includes not only the National Parent-Teachers
Association, Virginia Markel, the American Bar Association, Michael
McCann, the National Education Association, Darlene Chavez, but--listen
to this--Belva Davis, American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists; Charles B. Fitzsimmons, Producers Guild of America; Carl
Gotlieb, Writers Guild of America West; Ann Marcus, Caucus for
Producers, Writers and Directors; Gene Reynolds, Directors Guild of
America.
What do they say? I cannot print the entire document in the Record,
in deference to economy in Government. I read from the findings on page
29:

Much of TV violence is still glamorized.

This was their code in 1992. There is no ``glamorized.'' Six years
later, they themselves--the producers, the writers, Hollywood itself--
say:

Much of TV violence is still glamorized. Good characters
are frequently the perpetrators of violence and rarely do
they show remorse. Viewers of all ages are more likely to
emulate and learn from characters who are perceived as
attractive. Across the 3 years of this study, nearly 40
percent of the violent incidents on television are initiated
by characters who possess qualities that make them
attractive.

Heavens above. They prove our case for the amendment.
Again reading from the study:

Another aspect of glamorization is that physical aggression
on television is often condoned. For example, more than one-
third of violent programs feature bad characters who are
never punished. Therefore, violence that goes unpunished in
the shortrun poses serious risk to children.

[[Page S5200]]

Edgar Bronfman in the morning news said this is not something with
the entertainment industry. But it is producers, it is writers, it is
guilds, managers in Hollywood. I know if he had been in the liquor
business, he would tell him to go on out there and find out what is
going on.
Reading further from their report:

Violent behavior on television is quite serious in nature.
Across the 3-year study, more than half of the violent
incidents feature physical aggression that would be lethal or
incapacitating if it were to occur in real life. In spite of
very serious forms of aggression, much of this violence is
undermined by humor. At least 40 percent of the violent
scenes on television include humor.

And on and on, from this particular report. It is really noteworthy
that they prove our case. And to come up at this time saying that it
does not have any effect, like they said on ``Meet the Press'' on
Sunday, they would like to join in another study--and I understand the
distinguished manager, the chairman, is going to ask for another study
by the Surgeon General; and my distinguished chairman, the Senator from
Arizona, he has joined in with the Senator from Connecticut to get
another study.
Whereas the broadcasters, they know the history of broadcasting. We
ought to send them all this three-volume set. I quote from page 23.
Writers receive numerous plot instructions. This is back in 1953, 46
years ago. I quote:

It has been found that we retain audience interest best
when our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although
other crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered,
preferably early, with the threat of more violence to come.

That is how you make money. They can put out all the language just
like we do. I guess we are emulating them because we all talk about a
surplus, a surplus, a surplus, when we have a deficit. They talk again
and again and again how they are against this violence, and yet they
continue, under their own study, to spew it out and have a definite
effect out there in Colorado.
Mr. President, I call my colleagues' attention to Senate Commerce
Committee Report on ``Children's Protection From Violent Programming
Act,'' S. 363, Report No. 105-89 and the report on the ``Children's
Protection From Violent Programming Act of 1995,'' S. 470, Report No.
104-117.
Mr. President, let me agree, though, with Mr. Bronfman on this. And I
quote Mr. Bronfman from this morning's Washington Post.

``It's unfortunate that the American people, who really
look to their government for leadership, instead get finger-
pointing and chest-pounding,'' he said.

I will read that again, because I agree with him. ``It's unfortunate
that the American people, who really look to their government for
leadership, instead get finger-pointing and chest-pounding.''
There it is. We are experts at it when we call the $100 billion more
we are spending this year on a deficit a surplus. When we say it is a
legitimate gun dealer, and you have to have a background check, a
waiting period, it has sidelined 60,000 felons. It is working. But
yesterday, due to the stonewalling and influence of the NRA, we said
no, you can go to a gun show and there is no background check.
Can you imagine the Congress that has no shame whatever? I wish I
were a lawyer outside practicing. I would take that case immediately up
on the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause for the gun
dealers and say that is an unconstitutional provision when you do not
require it at the gun shows. I would easily win that case. So we are
going to set that aside or hope it is brought immediately so we will do
away with that. Maybe then they will sober up and we will get enough
votes.
Here today we are going to be faced again with the same stonewalling.
They go down again and again and again, and they will say: There is no
problem. We ought to have further studies.
There is one other result I want to mention to my distinguished
colleagues here in the Senate. I have already put in the 1972 report.
But I ask unanimous consent the American Medical Association article
``Television and Violence'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 10, 1992]

Television and Violence: The Scale of the Problem and Where To Go From
Here

(By Brandon S. Centerwall, MD, MPH)

In 1975 Rothenberg's Special Communication in JAMA,
``Effect of Television Violence on Children and Youth,''
first alerted the medical community to the deforming effects
the viewing of television violence has on normal child
development, increasing levels of physical aggressiveness and
violence.\1\ In response to physicians' concerns sparked by
Rothenberg's communication, the 1976 American Medical
Association (AMA) House of Delegates passed Resolution 38:
``The House declares TV violence threatens the health and
welfare of young Americans, commits itself to remedial
actions with interested parties, and encourages opposition to
TV programs containing violence and to their sponsors.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other professional organizations have since come to a
similar conclusion, including the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association.\3\ In
light of recent research findings, in 1990 the American
Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement:
``Pediatricians should advise parents to limit their
children's television viewing to 1 to 2 hours per day.'' \4\
Rothenberg's communication was largely based on the
findings of the 1968 National Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence \5\ and the 1972 Surgeon General's
report, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised
Violence.\6\ Those findings were updated and reinforced by
the 1982 report of the National Institute of Mental Health,
Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and
Implications for the Eighties, again documenting a broad
consensus in the scientific literature that exposure to
television violence increases children's physical
aggressiveness.\7\ Each of these governmental inquiries
necessarily left open the question of whether this increase
in children's physical aggressiveness would later lead to
increased rates of violence. Although there had been dozens
of laboratory investigations and short-term field studies (3
months or less), few long-term field studies (2 years or
more) had been completed and reported. Since the 1982
National Institute of Mental Health report, long-term field
studies have come into their own, some 20 having now been
published.\8\
In my commentary, I discuss television's effects within the
context of normal child development; give an overview of
natural exposure to television as a cause of aggression and
violence; summarize my own research findings on television as
a cause of violence; and suggest a course of action.

TELEVISION IN THE CONTEXT OF NORMAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT

The impact of television on children is best understood
within the context of normal child development. Neonates are
born with an instinctive capacity and desire to imitate adult
human behavior. That infants can, and do, imitate an array of
adult facial expressions has been demonstrated in neonates as
young as a few hours old, ie, before they are even old enough
to know cognitively that they themselves have facial features
that correspond with those they are observing.\9\^,
\10\ It is a most useful instinct, for the developing child
must learn and master a vast repertoire of behavior in short
order.
Whereas infants have an instinctive desire to imitate
observed human behavior, they do not possess an instinct for
gauging a priori whether a behavior ought to be imitated.
They will imitate anything,\11\ including behaviors that most
adults would regard as destructive and antisocial. It may
give pause for thought, then, to learn that infants as young
as 14 months of age demonstrably observe and incorporate
behaviors seen on television\12\^, \13\ (Looking
ahead, in two surveys of young male felons imprisoned for
committing violent crimes, eg, homicide, rape, and assault,
22% to 34% reported having consciously imitated crime
techniques learned from television programs, usually
successfully.\14\)
As of 1990, the average American child aged 2 to 5 years
was watching over 27 hours of television per week.\15\ This
might not be bad, if young children understood what they are
watching. However, up through ages 3 and 4 years, many
children are unable to distinguish fact from fantasy in
television programs and remain unable to do so despite adult
coaching.\16\ In the minds of such young children, television
is a source of entirely factual information regarding how the
world works. Naturally, as they get older, they come to know
better, but the earliest and deepest impressions were laid
down when the child saw television as a factual source of
information about a world outside their homes where violence
is a daily commonplace and the commission of violence is
generally powerful, exciting, charismatic, and efficacious.
Serious violence is most likely to erupt at moments of severe
stress--and it is precisely at such moments that adolescents
and adults are most likely to revert to their earliest, most
visceral sense of what violence is and what its role is in
society. Much of this sense will have come from
television.
Not all laboratory experiments and short-term field studies
demonstrate an effect of media violence on children's
behavior, but most do.^17,18 In a recent meta-
analysis of randomized, case-control, short-term studies,

[[Page S5201]]

exposure to media violence caused, on the average, a
significant increase in children's aggressiveness as measured
by observation of their spontaneous, natural behavior
following exposure (P<.05).\19\

NATURAL EXPOSURE TO TELEVISION AS A CAUSE OF AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE

In 1973, a small Canadian town (called ``Notel'' by the
investigators) acquired television for the first time. The
acquisition of television at such a late date was due to
problems with signal reception rather than any hostility
toward television, Joy et al \20\ investigated the impact of
television on this virgin community, using as control groups
two similar communities that already had television. In a
double-blind research design, a cohort of 45 first- and
second-grade students were observed prospectively over a
period of 2 years for rates of objectively measured noxious
physical aggression (eg, hitting, shoving, and biting). Rates
of physical aggression did not change significantly among
children in the two control communities. Two years after the
introduction of television, rates of physical aggression
among children in Notel had increased by 160% (P<.001).
In a 22-year prospective study of an age cohort in a
semirural US county (N=875), Huesmann \21\ observed whether
boys' television viewing at age 8 years predicted the
seriousness of criminal acts committed by age 30. After
controlling for the boys' baseline aggressiveness,
intelligence, and socioeconomic status at age 8, it was found
that the boys' television violence viewing at age 8
significantly predicted the seriousness of the crimes for
which they were convicted by age 30 (P<.05).
In a retrospective case-control study, Kruttschnitt et al
\22\ compared 100 male felons imprisoned for violent crimes
(eg, homicide, rape, and assault) with 65 men without a
history of violent offenses, matching for age, race, and
census tract of residence at age 10 to 14 years. After
controlling for school performance, exposure to parental
violence, and baseline level of criminality, it was found
that the association between adult criminal violence and
childhood exposure to television violence approached
statistical significance (P<.10).
All Canadian and US studies of the effect of prolonged
childhood exposure to television (2 years or more)
demonstrate a positive relationship between earlier exposure
to television and later physical aggressiveness, although not
all studies reach statistical significance. \8\ The critical
period of exposure to television is preadolescent childhood.
Later variations in exposure, in adolescence and adulthood,
do not exert any additional effect.\23\\,\ \24\ However, the
aggression-enhancing effect of exposure to television is
chronic, extending into later adolescence and
adulthood.\8\\,\ \25\ This implies that any interventions
should be designed for children and their caregivers rather
than for the general adult population.
These studies confirm what many Americans already believe
on the basis of intuition. In a national opinion poll, 43% of
adult Americans affirm that television violence ``plays a
part in making America a violent society,'' and an additional
37% find the thesis at least plausible (only 16% frankly
disbelieve the proposition).\26\ But how big a role does it
play? What is the effeft of natural exposure to television on
entire populations? To address this issue, I took advantage
of an historical experiment--the absence of television in
South Africa prior to 1975.\8\\,\ \25\

television and homicide in south africa, canada, and the united states

The South African government did not permit television
broadcasting prior to 1975, even though South African whites
were a prosperous, industrialized Western society.\8\ Amidst
the hostile tensions between the Afrikaner and English white
communities, it was generally conceded that any South African
television broadcasting industry would have to rely on
British and American imports to fill out its programming
schedule. Afrikaner leaders felt that that would provide an
unacceptable cultural advantage to the English-speaking white
South Africans. Rather than negotiate a complicated
compromise, the Afrikaner-controlled government chose to
finesse the issue by forbidding television broad-casting
entirely. Thus, an entire population of 2 million whites--
rich and poor, urban and rural, educated and uneducated--was
nonselectively and absolutely excluded from exposure to
television for a quarter century after the medium was
introduced into the United States. Since the ban on
television was not based on any concerns regarding television
and violence, there was no self-selection bias with respect
to the hypothesis being tested.
To evaluate whether exposure to television is a cause of
violence, I examined homicide rates in South Africa, Canada,
and the United States. Given that blacks in South Africa live
under quite different conditions than blacks in the United
States, I limited the comparison to white homicide rates in
South Africa and the United States and the total homicide
rate in Canada (which was 97% white in 1951). Data analyzed
were from the respective government vital statistics
registries. The reliability of the homicide data is discussed
elsewhere.\8\
Following the introduction of television into the United
States, the annual white homicide rate increased by 93%, from
3.0 homicides per 100,000 white population in 1945 to 5.8 per
100,000 in 1974; in South Africa, where television was
banned, the white homicide rate decreased by 7%, from 2.7
homicides per 100,000 white population in 1943 through 1948
to 2.5 per 100,000 in 1974. As with US whites, following the
introduction of television into Canada the Canadian homicide
rate increased by 92%, from 1.3 homicides per 1,000
population in 1945 to 2.5 per 100,000 in 1974.
For both Canada and the United States, there was a lag of
10 to 15 years between the introduction of television and the
subsequent doubling of the homicide rate. Given that homicide
is primarily an adult activity, if television exerts its
behavior-modifying effects primarily on children, the initial
``television generation'' would have had to age 10 to 15
years before they would have been old enough to affect the
homicide rate. If this were so, it would be expected that, as
the initial television generation grew up, rates of serious
violence would first begin to rise among children, then
several years later it would begin to rise among adolescents,
then still later among young adults, and so on. And that is
what is observed.\8\
In the period immediately preceding the introduction of
television into Canada and the United States, all three
countries were multiparty, representative, federal
democracies with strong Christian religious influences, where
people of nonwhite races were generally excluded from
political power. Although television broadcasting was
prohibited prior to 1975, white South Africa had well-
developed book, newspaper, radio, and cinema industries.
Therefore, the effect of television could be isolated from
that of other media influences. In addition, I examined an
array of possible confounding variables--changes in age
distribution, urbanization, economic conditions, alcohol
consumption, capital punishment, civil unrest, and the
availability of firearms.\8\ None provided a viable
alternative explanation for the observed homicide trends. For
further details regarding the testing of the hypothesis, I
refer the reader to the published monograph \8\ and
commentary.\25\
A comparison of South Africa with only the United States
could easily lead to the hypothesis that US involvement in
the Vietnam War or the turbulence of the civil rights
movement was responsible for the doubling of homicide rates
in the United States. The inclusion of Canada as a control
group precludes these hypotheses, since Canadians likewise
experienced a doubling of homicide rates without involvement
in the Vietnam War and without the turbulence of the US civil
rights movement.
When I published my original paper in 1989, I predicted
that white South African homicide rates would double within
10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in 1975,
the rate having already increased 56% by 1983 (the most
recent year then available). \8\ As of 1987, the white South
African homicide rate and reached 5.8 homicides per 100,000
white population, a 130% increase in the homicide rate from
the rate of 2.5 per 100,000 in 1974, the last year before
television was introduced.\27\ In contrast, Canadian and
white US homicide rates have not increased since 1974. As of
1987, the Canadian homicide rate was 2.2 per 100,000, as
compared with 2.5 per 100,000 in 1974.\28\ In 1987, the US
white homicide rate was 5.4 per 100,000, as compared with 5.8
per 100,000 in 1974.\29\ (Since Canada and the United States
became saturated with television by the early 1960s, it was
expected that the effect of television on rates of violence
would likewise reach a saturation point 10 to 15 years
later.)
It is concluded that the introduction of television in the
1950s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate,
i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal
factor behind approximately one half of the homicides
committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000
homicides annually. Although the data are not as well
developed for other forms of violence, they indicate that
exposure to television is also a casual factor behind a major
proportion--perhaps one half--of rapes, assaults, and other
forms of interpersonal violence in the United States.\8\ When
the same analytic approach was taken to investigate the
relationship between television and suicide, it was
determined that the introduction of television in the 1950s
exerted no significant effect on subsequent suicide
rates.\30\
To say that childhood exposure to television and television
violence is a predisposing factor behind half of violent acts
is not to discount the importance of other factors.
Manifestly, every violent act is the result of an array of
forces coming together--poverty, crime, alcohol and drug
abuse, stress--of which childhood exposure to television is
just one. Nevertheless, the epidemiologic evidence indicates
that if, hypothetically, television technology had never been
developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each
year in the United States, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000
fewer injurious assaults.\25\\,\ \31\

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

In the war against tobacco, the tobacco industry is the
last group from whom we expect any meaningful action. If
someone were to call on the tobacco industry to cut back
tobacco production as a matter of social conscience and out
of concern for the public health, we would regard that person
as being at least simple-minded, if not frankly deranged.
Oddly enough, however, people have persistently assumed that
the television industry operates by a higher standard of
morality than the tobacco industry--that it is useful to
appeal to its social conscience. This

[[Page S5202]]

was true in 1969 when the National Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence published its recommendations for
the television industry.\32\ It was equally true in 1989 when
the US Congress passed a television antiviolence bill that
granted television industry executives the authority to
confer on the issue of television violence without being in
violation of antitrust laws.\33\ Even before the law was
fully passed, the four networks stated that they had no
intention of using this antitrust exemption to any useful end
and that there would be no substantive changes in programming
content.\34\ They have been as good as their word.
Cable aside, the television industry is not in the business
of selling programs to audiences. It is in the business of
selling audiences to advertisers. Issues of ``quality'' and
``social responsibility'' are entirely peripheral to the
issue of maximizing audience size within a competitive
market--and there is no formula more tried and true than
violence for reliably generating large audiences that can be
sold to advertisers. If public demand for tobacco decreases
by 1%, the tobacco industry will lose $250 million annually
in revenue.\35\ Similarly, if the television audience size
were to decrease by 1%, the television industry would stand
to lose $250 million annually in advertising revenue.\35\
Thus, changes in audience size that appear trivial to you and
me are regarded as catastrophic by the industry. For this
reason, industry spokespersons have made innumerable
protestations of good intent, but nothing has happened. In
over 20 years of monitoring levels of television violence,
there has been no downward movement.\36\^, \37\
There are no recommendations to make to the television
industry. To make any would not only be futile but create the
false impression that the industry might actually do
something constructive.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that
pediatricians advise parents to limit their children's
television viewing to 1 to 2 hours per day.\4\ This is an
excellent point of departure and need not be limited to
pediatricians. It may seem remote that a child watching
television today can be involved years later in violence. A
juvenile taking up cigarettes is also remote from the dangers
of chronic smoking, yet those dangers are real, and it is
best to intervene early. The same holds true regarding
television-viewing behavior. The instruction is simple: For
children, less TV is better, especially violent TV.
Symbolic gestures are important, too. The many thousands of
physicians who gave up smoking were important role models for
the general public. Just as many waiting rooms now have a
sign saying, ``This Is a Smoke-Free Area'' (or words to that
effect), so likewise a sign can be posted saying, ``This Is a
Television-Free Area.'' (This is not meant to exclude the use
of instructional videotapes.) By sparking inquiries from
parents and children, such a simple device provides a low-key
way to bring up the subject in a clinical setting.
Children's exposure to television and television violence
should become part of the public health agenda, along with
safety seats, bicycle helmets, immunizations, and good
nutrition. One-time campaigns are of little value. It needs
to become part of the standard package: Less TV is better,
especially violent TV. Part of the public health approach
should be to promote child-care alternatives to the
electronic baby-sitter, especially among the poor who cannot
afford real baby-sitters.
Parents should guide what their children watch on
television and how much. This is an old recommendation \32\
that can be given new teeth with the help of modern
technology. It is now feasible to fit a television set with
an electronic lock that permits parents to preset which
programs, channels, and times they wish the set to be
available for; if a particular program or time of day is
locked, the set won't turn on for that time or channel.\38\
The presence of a time-channel lock restores and reinforces
parental authority, since it operates even when the parents
are not at home, thus permitting parents to use television to
their family's best advantage. Time-channel locks are not
merely feasible, but have already been designed and are
coming off the assembly line (eg, the Sony XBR).
Closed captioning permits deaf and hard-of-hearing persons
access to television. Recognizing that market forces alone
would not make closed-captioning technology available to more
than a fraction of the deaf and hard-of-hearing, the
Television Decoder Circuitry Act was signed into law in 1990,
requiring that, as of 1993, all new television sets (with
screens 33 cm or larger, ie, 96% of new television sets) be
manufactured with built-in closed-captioning circuitry.\39\ A
similar law should require that eventually all new television
sets be manufactured with built-in time-channel lock
circuitry--and for a similar reason. Market forces alone will
not make this technology available to more than a fraction of
households with children and will exclude poor families, the
ones who suffer the most from violence. If we can make
television technology available that will benefit 24 million
deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans,\30\ surely we can do not
less for the benefit of 50 million American children.\35\
Unless they are provided with information, parents are ill-
equipped to judge which programs to place off-limits. As a
final recommendation, television programs should be
accompanied by a violence rating so parents can gauge how
violent a program is without having to watch it. Such a
rating system should be quantitiative and preferably
numerical, leaving aesthetic and social judgments to the
viewers. Exactly how the scale ought to be quantified is less
important than that it be applied consistently. Such a rating
system would enjoy broad popular support: In a national poll,
71% of adult Americans favor the establishment of a violence
rating system for television programs.\40\
It should be noted that none of these recommendations
impinges on issues of freedom of speech. That is as it should
b. It is not reasonable to address the problem of motor
vehicle fatalities by calling for a ban on cars. Instead, we
emphasize safety seats, good traffic signs, and driver
education. Similarly, to address the problem of violence
caused by exposure to television, we need to emphasize time-
channel locks, program rating systems, and education of the
public regarding good viewing habits.

footnotes

1. Rothenberg MB, Effect of television on children and youth.
JAMA. 1975;234:1043-1046.
2. American Medical Association. Proceedings of the House of
Delegates, June-July, 1976. Chicago, Ill: American Medical
Association; 1976:280.
3. Zylke JW. More voices join medicine in expressing concern
over amount, content of what children see on TV. JAMA.
1988;260:1831-1832.
4. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
Communications. Children, adolescents, and television.
Pediatrics. 1990;85:1119-1120.
5. Baker RK, Ball SJ, eds. Violence and the Media: A Staff
Report to the National Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office; 1969.
6. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on
Television and Social Behavior. Television and Growing Up:
The Impact of Televised Violence. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office; 1972.
7. Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J, eds. Television and
Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications
for the Eighties. Rockville, Md: National Institute of Mental
Health; 1982.
8. Centerwall BS. Exposure to television as a cause of
violence. In: Comstock G, ed. Public Communication and
Behavior. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1989;2:1-58.
9. Meltzoff AN, Moore MK. Newborn infants imitate adult
facial gestures. Child Dev. 1983;54:702-709.
10. Meltzoff AN, Moore MK. Imitation in newborn infants:
exploring the range of gestures imitated and the underlying
mechanism. Dev Psychol. 1989;25:954-962.
11. Meltzoff AN. Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: long-
term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Dev Psychol.
1988;24:470-476.
12. Meltzoff AN. Imitation of televised models by infants.
Child Dev. 1988;59:1221-1229.
13. Meltzoff AN. Memory in infancy. In: Squire LR, Byrne J,
Nadel L, Roediger H, Schacter D, Thompson R, eds.
Encyclopedia of Learning and Memory. New York, NY: Macmillan
Publishing Co. Inc; 1992.
14. Heller MS, Polsky S. Studies in Violence and Television.
New York, NY: American Broadcasting Company; 1976.
15. AC Nielsen Company. Nielsen Report on Television 1990.
Northbrook, Ill: Nielsen Media Research; 1990.
16. Flavell JH. The development of children's knowledge about
the appearance-reality distinction. Am Psychol. 1986;41:418-
425.
17. Andison FS. TV violence and viewer aggression: a
cumulation of study results, 1954-1976. Public Opinion Q.
1977;41:314-331.
18. Hearold S. A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on
social behavior. In: Comstock G, ed. Public Communication and
Behavior. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1986;1:65-133.
19. Wood W, Wong FY, Chachere JG. Effects of media violence
on viewers' aggression in unconstrained social interaction.
Psychol Bull. 1991;109:371-383.
20. Joy LA, Kimball MM, Zabrack ML. Television and children's
aggressive behavior. In: Williams TM, ed. The Impact of
Television: A Natural Experiment in Three Communities.
Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1986:303-360.
21. Huesmann LR. Psychological processes promoting the
relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive
behavior by the viewer. J Soc Issues. 1986;42(3):125-139.
22. Kruttschnitt C, Heath L, Ward DA. Family violence,
television viewing habits, and other adolescent experiences
related to violent criminal behavior. Criminology.
1986;24:235-267.
23. Milavsky JR, Kessler RC, Stipp HH, Rubens WS. Television
and Aggression: A Panel Study. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press
Inc; 1982.
24. Hennigan KM, Del Rosario ML, Heath L, Cook TD, Wharton
JD, Calder BJ. Impact of the introduction of television on
crime in the United States: empirical findings and
theoretical implications. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;42:461-
477.
25. Centerwall BS. Exposure to television as a risk factor
for violence. A J Epidemiol, 1989; 129:643-652.
26. Harris L. Too much TV violence. Harris Survey, August 4,
1977.
27. Central Statistical Service. Deaths: Whites, Coloureds
and Asians, 1987. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer,
1989.
28. World Health Organization, World Health Statistics
Annual, 1989, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;
1989.
29. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics
of the United States, 1987. Hyattsville, Md: US Department of
Health and Human Services; 1990.
30. Centerwall BS. Young adult suicide and exposure to
television. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 1990; 25:149-
153.
31. Johnson JM, DeBerry MM Jr. Criminal Victimization. 1989:
A National Crime Survey Report. Washington, DC: US Department
of Justice; 1990.
32. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence, To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic
Tranquility: Final Report of the National Commission on the
Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office; 1969: 187-207.
33. Dietz WH, Strasburger VC. Children, adolescents, and
television. Curr Probl Pediatr. 1991;21:8-31.
34. Clark KR. Antiviolence law won't bring much change,
networks say. Seattle Times. August 10, 1989:F12.
35. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1991. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office; 1991.
36. Signorielli N, Gross L, Morgan M. Violence in television
programs: ten years later. In: Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J,
eds. Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific
Progress and Implications for the Eighties. Rockville, Md:
National Institute of Mental Health; 1982: 158-173.

[[Page S5203]]

37. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M, Signorielli N. The Violence
Profile: Enduring Patterns. Philadelphia, Pa: Annenberg
School of Communication; 1989.
38. Surgeon General's Northwest Conference on Interpersonal
Violence., Report Seattle, Wash: US Public Health Service;
1987:93-94.
39. DuBow S. The Television Decoder Circuitry Act--TV for
all. Temple Law Rev. 1991;64-609-628.
40. Los Angeles Times Poll. Television sex and violence. Poll
196. September 19, 1989. In: Opinion Research Service.
American Public Opinion Data. Louisville, Ky: Opinion
Research Service. 1989.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am limited in time so I am going
along:

Following the introduction of television in the United
States, the annual white homicide rate increased by 93
percent from 1945 to 1974. In Canada during that same period,
the homicide rate increased 92 percent.

This is really the clincher, Mr. President:

In South Africa, where television was not introduced until
1975, the white homicide rate decreased 7 percent between
1943 and 1974; but by 1987, 12 years after television was
introduced in South Africa, the white homicide rate there had
increased by 130 percent.

Mr. Bronfman says it has nothing to do with television. Come on. Give
us a break. For those who come around now and say: We are going to have
content, V-chip, and everything else, and we want everything else, we
have the content, we all agree--we did not all agree. In fact, NBC, the
premium television network, they didn't agree to a content-based rating
system; it is voluntary. They said: I do not agree with that, and we
are not going to do it. And they do not do it. But they are talking
about content.
BET, Black Entertainment Television, another responsible network
group, said: We are not going along with that.
But let's see what the Kaiser Family Foundation found out since they
have put in now, for a couple years, the so-called content rating
system. A 1999 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 79
percent of shows with moderate levels of violence do not receive the
content descriptor ``V'' for violence. Of course, NBC and BET do not go
along with it.
There is the program, ``Walker, Texas Ranger,'' which appears on the
USA cable channel at 8 p.m. in the Washington, DC, area. It included
the stabbing of two guards on a bus, an assault on a church by escaped
convicts who take people hostage and threaten to rape a nun, and an
episode ending where one escapee is shot and another is beaten
unconscious. But the show did not receive the content descriptor ``V''
for violence.
This is all in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation study.
The Kaiser study also found that no programs rated TV-G receive a
``V'' rating for violence. Moreover, 81 percent of the children's
programming containing violence did not even receive the ``FV'' rating
for fantasy violence.
And then a question. Let me quote this one:

The bottom line is clear.

This is from the Kaiser report:

Parents cannot rely on the content descriptors as currently
employed to block all shows containing violence. There is
still a significant amount of moderate to high-level violence
in shows without content descriptors. And with respect to
children's programming, the failure to use the ``V''
descriptor and the rare use of the ``FV'' descriptor leads to
the conclusion that there is no effective way for parents to
block out all children's shows containing violence, V-chip or
no V-chip.

Then finally the Kaiser Family Foundation study says:

Children would still be woefully unprotected from
television violence because content rating V is rarely used.

So much for: Content, content; give it time; give it time to work;
and everything else like that. They have no idea of that working. What
about the V-chip?
If you want to really spend an afternoon and tomorrow, try to toy
with this one. I have a V-chip in my hand. I hold it up. You can get
them there at Circuit City for $90.
Who is going to spend the time to learn how to use this? Well, they
are not. And 70 percent of those polled who use the rating system say
they will not buy a V-chip. They are going to trust the children.
How are you going to go through the average home that has three sets?
Can't you see that mother in the morning chasing around--she has 64
channels in Washington. It is all voluntary; it is not required. She
does not know which channel is which. She has this thing. And, wait a
minute, she has her 18 pages of instructions. So she chases around from
the kitchen to the bedroom, down to the children's room, and she has
the 64 programs, and she has her 18 pages of instructions, and it is
complicated because they do not want the children to be able to work
it. Well, by gosh, they have succeeded with me. I don't know how to
work it. We tried yesterday afternoon when we had a little time. We are
going to work on it some more. But I bet you my boots that my
grandchildren will learn quicker than I. I can tell you that right now.
They will know how to work this blooming thing. It is not going to
happen. That was another sop in the 1996 telecommunications act. Those
on the House side wanted the V-chip. It was another putoff, another
stonewall. We knew it was impractical. We know it is easier to trust
your children than to go through this charade and this expense and race
around and try to figure out all of these things.

When you have a dial on there, just turn that off. You don't need a
chip. Just turn it off. Tell the children they cannot use it.
Well, you say, the children are going to do it anyway. I tell you the
truth, with all these rating things, if I was a kid and found out that
something was naughty and it was rated where I couldn't see it, just
being a child, I would say, well, wait a minute, we are going to go to
Johnny's house. My parents got me, but there is nobody home at
Johnny's. We'll see this thing.
I mean, you really induce, excite, interest children with the rating
system. It is counterproductive to begin with. But then the V-chip they
talk about is just next to impossible.
Let us go to the constitutional question, Mr. President. It is not
the least restrictive. The family hour is the least restrictive. Under
the court decisions with respect to this interference on free speech,
it is not that we have an overwhelming public interest established,
which we have in the record, but it has to be the least restrictive.
The least restrictive, of course, is that that has been tried and true,
the family hour approach that we have now submitted in the amendment.
I hope they have enough pride to go along with what they have all
voted. We voted this out in 1995, with only one dissenting vote. We
voted it out in 1997, with one dissenting vote. I remember in 1995, the
distinguished majority leader then, Senator Dole of Kansas, he went out
there and he gave Hollywood--I hate to use the word ``hell,'' but that
is what it is; that is what the newspapers said. He came back on the
floor all charged up.
So I went to him and I said: Bob, I got the bill in. It is on the
calendar. You put your name on it, if there is some interest in the
authorship or whatever it is, or make any little changes you want to
make. I am trying to get something done. I have been trying with John
Pastore since 1969, 30 years now, to get something done, get a vote.
I said: Let's go ahead with it. But, no, no, the overwhelming
influence of Hollywood, it stops us in our tracks. The overwhelming
influence of the NRA, it stops us in our tracks.
I agree with Mr. Bronfman. Mr. Bronfman is right on target: It is
unfortunate when the American people, who really look to their
government for leadership, they don't find it, because they are bought
and sold.
It is a tragic thing. You cannot get anything done around here. I
have got a one-line amendment to the Constitution to get rid of this
cancer: The Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to
regulate or control spending in Federal elections. With that one line
we go back to the 1974 act. We limit spending per voter. No cash;
everything on top of the table; no soft money. One line says we can go
back. We passed it in a bipartisan fashion back in the 1974 act, almost
25 years ago. We were like a dog chasing its tail.
But if we don't get rid of that cancer, you are not going to get any
Congress. This Congress, instead of responding to the needs of the
people with respect to spending and paying the bill in the budget, with
responding to the gun violence around here where we take legitimate
dealers and say you have to have a background, but the illegitimate
shows, you say, yesterday afternoon, forget about it, and where today
they want to move to table an amendment

[[Page S5204]]

that works in England and Europe, down under, New Zealand, Australia
and everything else. Why not? Because we want that support from out
there with that group.
Of course, I think they own the magazines, the broadcasters, the
Internet; they own each other. I can't keep up with the morning paper,
who owns everything, but they are all owning each other. There is a
tremendous, overwhelming influence for money, money, money. It is
tragic, but it is true.
We have to sober up here and start passing some good legislation that
people have been crying out for--the Parent-Teacher Association,
National Education Association, American Medical Association, American
Psychiatric Association, with the 18 hearings that we have had, 300
formative studies, over 1,000 different articles. Yet they say, well,
wait a minute, that is on content. Let's see with the V-chip that is
coming in July. They know it is a stonewall.
Mr. President, I yield such time as necessary to the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to join my
colleague, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, as a cosponsor of this
amendment. I have worked with Senator Hollings since 1992 on this
subject in the Commerce Committee. We have had hearing after hearing.
This is a very big issue. We are proposing a baby step on a very big
issue. It is likely that this baby step that we propose to take will be
turned down by the Senate. We will see. Maybe I will be surprised
today. I hope I will. But if the past is prologue, we will likely see
the Senate decide it is not time or the amendment is not right or any
one of 1,000 excuses.
If ever there was an example of when all is said and done, more is
said than done, if ever there was an example of that, it is on this
subject. We have thousands of studies. We have had hundreds of hours of
debate, many proposals. Almost nothing happens.
Will Rogers said something once instructive, it seems to me. He said:
When there is no place left to spit, you either have to swallow your
tobacco juice or change with the times.
On this subject, I say to my colleagues, it is time to swallow your
tobacco juice. There is no place left to spit on this issue.
Let me give you some statistics. As a parent, I am pretty acutely
aware, but I have a 12-year-old son and a 10-year-old daughter. We have
a couple television sets, and they have switches on the sets. We try
very hard to make sure they are not watching inappropriate television
programming, but I tell you, it is hard. There is a lot coming through
those sets at all hours of the day and night.
Senator Hollings and I say, let us at least describe a block of time
or have the Federal Communications Commission describe a period of time
during which children are expected to be watching television, during
family hour, and describe that that period will not contain excessive
amounts of violence on television. Surely we can entertain adults
without hurting our children. That is all this amendment says.
Is it old-fashioned? Yes, it goes back to a time when we actually had
a sort of understanding. During certain periods of the evening, during
family time, during times when you would expect children to watch
television, you won't have excessive acts of violence on television
programming. Is that so extreme? Is that censorship? No, of course not.
Let me read you some information. Before I do, let me mention, I said
last night that by the time a young person graduates from high school,
they have watched 12,500 hours of television. Excuse me, let me change
that. They have sat in a classroom, 12,500 hours in a school classroom,
and they have watched 20,000 hours of television. They are,
regrettably, in many cases much more a product of what they have seen
than what they have read. Let me read some statistics about what they
are seeing on these television programs.
By the end of elementary school, the American Medical Association
reports from their studies, the average American child has watched
8,000 murders on television and 100,000 acts of aggressive violence.
That is by the end of elementary school. By age 18, these numbers, of
course, have jumped, 112,000 acts of violence, and by age 18, the
average young American has watched 40,000 murders on television.
Now, one can make the point that it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant,
and this doesn't affect anybody. I am not saying that just because when
somebody sees an act on violence on television, they rush out the door
and commit an act of violence on somebody else. But I am saying that
the media have a profound influence on our lives. People spend $200
billion a year advertising precisely because they feel it makes a
difference--it makes a difference in terms of what people wear, what
songs they sing, how they act, what kind of chewing gum they buy. It
works--except when it comes to violence, we are told it is irrelevant
and it doesn't matter.
I would like to call my colleagues' attention to one little community
in Canada. I have never been there; I never heard of it before, in
fact. But a fascinating study was done in this town. It is a town
called Notel, Canada. In 1973, this small community acquired television
for the first time. It wasn't because this little Canadian town never
wanted television; that wasn't the problem. The problem was that they
had signal reception problems that could not be solved and so they
didn't get television until much, much later. They didn't have any
hostility to television; they just didn't get it. You had this little
``island,'' this little town with no television. Somebody decided to do
a study. They did a study concurrent with this community never having
had television now receiving television for the first time. They did a
double blind study and selected two other towns and then this
community. Then they measured young people's behavior.
I want to describe to you what they learned because it is exactly
what you would expect: Television affects behavior. Violent television
affects behavior.
In the double blind research design, first and second grade students
were observed prospectively over a period of 2 years for rates of
objectively measured noxious physical aggression, such as hitting,
shoving, biting, et cetera. The rates of aggression did not change in
the two communities who had had television all along. Their rate of
aggression was the same. But that community that just received
television in 1973, which had been dark all those years because they
could not get reception, they get television now, it is a new thing,
and guess what happens? The rates of physical aggression among their
children increased by 160 percent. The other two communities didn't
change. The community that just began to receive television had a
substantial increase in the rate of aggression among their children.
What does that say? It says what we all know: Television affects
behavior. At one of our hearings, we had testimony that said--do you
remember the old ``Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles'' program? There was
Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo and--perhaps the Senator from South
Carolina can name the fourth. It's Raphael, I think. So you have four
turtles, and they have sticks and they are beating up each other. It is
interesting.
We had testimony before the Commerce Committee that ``Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtles'' had to be produced two ways. One, with all of the full
flavor of the hitting and the sticks and all of the things they were
doing. And, second, they had to clean it up and tone it down because in
some foreign markets they would not allow it to be imported into their
television sets with that level of violence because they didn't want
the kids to see that. So you make it at one level of aggression and
violence for the U.S. market and then clean it up a bit so some of the
foreign children aren't exposed to that.

I thought that was interesting because it describes, it seems to me,
an attitude here. The attitude has been: Let's keep pushing the limits.
I think, as I said yesterday, television has some wonderful things on
it. I laud those people who produce it. Some things I see are so
wonderful and beautiful. I watch some of these channels. I have
mentioned Discovery, the History Channel, and so many other things.
Yes, the broadcast channels produce things I believe are wonderful as
well. But I also have the right, believing that and saying that, to say
there is

[[Page S5205]]

also a lot of trash. The first amendment gives people a right to
produce trash as well. But is the first amendment an impediment for us
to say to broadcasters that there are certain times in our living
rooms, when our children are going to be expected to be watching
television, that we ought to be able to expect a menu of television
programming that is free from excessive violence? Is that an
unreasonable proposition? I don't think so.
The evidence, as described by the Senator from South Carolina, is so
clear. After a couple of decades of research, the National Institutes
of Mental Health concluded:

The great majority of studies link television violence and
real life aggression.

The American Psychological Association's review of research was
conclusive. They said:

The accumulated research clearly demonstrates a correlation
between viewing violence and aggressive behavior.

You can throw these studies away and say it doesn't matter, that it
is psychobabble. But, of course, we all know it is not. Every parent
here understands that this is real.
I mentioned last evening that if someone came to the door of my
colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, or the Senator from South
Carolina, and you had children in your living room playing and you had
a television set that was turned off and somebody knocked on the door
and said: We have some entertainment for your kids; I have a rental
truck here and we have props and some set designs and I have some
actors; I would like to bring them into your living room and put on a
little play for your children. So you invite them into your living room
and they put on a play. They pull knives and stab each other, they pull
pistols and shoot each other, and they beat each other bloody--all in
the context of this dramatic play, this mayhem and violence. And your
children are watching with eyes the size of dinner plates. Would you,
as a parent, sit there and say that it doesn't matter, that is fine,
thanks for bringing this play into my living room? I don't think so. I
think you would probably call the police and say: I have a case of
child abuse in my living room. Shame on you for bringing that into my
living room.
Well, it is brought into our living rooms every day, in every way,
with the touch of a button. Some say, well, the solution to that is to
turn the TV set off. Absolutely true. There isn't a substitute for
parental responsibility. But as a parent, I can tell you it is
increasingly difficult to supervise the viewing habits of children.
I introduced the first legislation in the Senate on the V-chip. I
introduced it twice, in 1993 and in 1994. It is now law. The V-chip
will be on television sets, but it will be a while before almost all
television sets have them. Hopefully, that will be one tool to help
parents, but it will not be the solution, just a tool.
It seems to me that we ought to decide now, to the extent that we can
help parents better supervise children's viewing habits, that we can
tell broadcasters, and tell the FCC that we want broadcasters to know,
there is a period of time when they are broadcasting shows into our
living rooms that we want the violence to be reduced in that
programming so as not to hurt our children. That is not unreasonable.
That is the most reasonable, sensible thing in the world. We did it
before in this country; we ought to do it now. We have done it for
obscenity, and we ought to do it for violence. The Supreme Court has
ruled that there is a period of time when certain kinds of obscenities
and language ought not to be allowed to be broadcast because children
will be watching or listening. And the Supreme Court has upheld that.
The Supreme Court will uphold this. Again, I say, this is a baby step
forward.
Now, let me quote, if I might, the Attorney General of the United
States, who testified at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing.
She said:

I am not at this hearing as a scientist. I am here as
Attorney General who has been concerned about the future of
this country's children and as a concerned American who is
fed up with excuses and hedging in the face of an epidemic of
violence. When it comes to these studies about television
violence, I think we are allowed to add our common sense into
the mix.

She continues:

Any parent can tell you how their children mimic what they
see everywhere, including what they watch on television.
Studies show children literally acting out and imitating what
they watch. The networks themselves understand this point
very well. They have run public service announcements to
promote socially constructive behavior. They announce that
this year's programs featured a reduced amount of violence,
and they boosted episodes encouraging constructive behavior
in each instance. Then they endorse the notion that
television can influence how people act.

She says, further quoting her:

As slogans go, I fear that ``Let the parents turn off the
television'' may be a bit naive as a response to television
violence, especially when you consider the challenge that
parents face in trying to convince children to study hard,
behave and stay out of trouble. Supreme Court Justice John
Paul Stevens compared this argument to saying that the remedy
for an assault is to run away after the first blow. Indeed,
many parents don't want to have to turn the television set
off. They want to expose their children to the good things
television can offer, like education and family-oriented
programs.

I have watched television for a long time and have seen much good and
much that concerns me. I have seen in most recent years an increasing
desire to create sensationalized violence and intrigue in
entertainment, most notably the shows about the police and the rescue
missions.
When I turn it on these days, there is one network that is
particularly egregious. They have all kinds of shows where they get
their television cameras and put them in the cop's car. I guess what
they are doing is probably contracting with the police someplace, and
then they are off and showing traffic arrests and drug arrests. The
other night, I saw a case where a fellow was in the front seat of the
police car with a camera for a television show. And they engaged in a
high-speed chase of a drunk driver. The result, of course, was that at
the end of the chase there was a dead, innocent driver coming the other
direction hit by the drunk.
My mother was killed by a drunk driver. My mother was killed in a
high-speed police chase.
I have spent years in the Congress proposing legislation dealing with
drunk driving with high-speed pursuits and other things. I have also
prepared legislation recently dealing with this question of whether our
police departments should contract with television stations, having
people with television cameras riding in the police car, of which the
conclusion, incidentally, to a high-speed chase must be, it seems to
me, to go ``get their man'' because that is going to make a good
conclusion to the television program. The answer to me, though, is
absolutely not.
If they want to put a television camera in a police car for the
entertainment of people on some television network, then I think we
ought to subject them to a very substantial liability when somebody
gets hurt as a result of it.

I am, frankly, a little tired of turning on television and seeing
television news cameras moving down the highways and above the highway
recording high-speed chases, because they think it is excitement that
people want to see. I am flat sick of seeing programs in which
television network programs are riding with members of the police force
because they can maybe record some violence for people who want to see.
That is not entertainment, in my judgment. That is just more trash on
television. I know some people like to watch it. But I happen to think
people die as a result of it. Innocent people die as a result of it,
and I think it ought to stop.
But this issue of violence on television is something that Senator
Hollings from South Carolina has been at it for a long time. We just
had a man come to the Chamber a bit ago, Senator Paul Simon from
Illinois. He is not a member of this body anymore. He retired. But he
also joined us years ago. In fact, he was one of the earliest ones who
talked about this issue. This issue has been around since the 1960s,
and has been discussed among families for all of this decade.
With respect to the efforts of the Senator from South Carolina, and,
as I indicated, the proposal that he and I offer today to simply allow
the FCC the authority to describe a period of time in the evening that
would be described as family viewing hours is a baby step forward.
Those who come to this Chamber and say that they can't

[[Page S5206]]

take this baby step, you can make excuses forever. You can make excuses
for the next 10 years, as far as I am concerned. You defy all common
sense if you say you can't take this baby step. The only reason you
can't take this step is because there are a bunch of other big
interests out there pressing on you saying we want to make money
continuing to do what we are doing. What they are doing is hurting this
country's kids.
As I said when I started, surely we ought to be able to entertain
adults in this country without hurting our children. And this is one
sensible step that we can take. We did it before some years ago. We
ought to do it again. It does no violence to the first amendment. It
seems to me that it offers common sense to American families.
Mr. President I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah
to yield to me 10 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have talked with the distinguished
sponsor of this amendment, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr.
Hollings, with whom I have had the privilege to serve for 25 years--he
has been here longer than that--and also with my distinguished friend
from North Dakota, who has just spoken.
Mr. President, as I told the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina, I will have to oppose the amendment because of an agreement I
made with a number of the industry groups a couple of years ago. I
believe that agreement is still appropriate today. It is an agreement
that brought about a compromise between Senators and industry to try to
work them out, as we have with a number of other things, in a
cooperative way, whether it is with legislation or legislative fiat.
It involved a V-chip. I wanted to give the V-chip a fair chance to work
in the marketplace, because I felt that technology was rapidly
changing, and working in the marketplace might be a lot better than
legislation that almost fixes technology where it is. I am enough of
the old school that having made a commitment I am not going to go back
on it.

The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the National PTA, the National Education Association, the Center for
Media Education, the American Psychological Association, the National
Association of Elementary School Principals, the Children's Defense
Fund, and others agreed in writing on July 10, 1997, to allow the V-
chip system to proceed unimpeded by new legislation so that we could
see how it works.
Just last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll showing
that 77 percent of parents said that if they had a V-chip in their home
they would use the technology. With the rating system and the V-chip,
each family can create their own individualized family viewing system.
I think that would work a lot better in protecting children than the
amendment we are considering.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield for a
question?
Mr. LEAHY. Certainly.
Mr. DORGAN. It is a very brief question.
As the Senator knows, I was the original sponsor of the V-chip that
was first introduced in the Senate. The Senator from Vermont is
describing an agreement. I am curious. The Senator mentioned a few of
the outside groups who are party to the agreement. Which Senators were
a part of that agreement? I was the original sponsor of the V-chip. I
wasn't a part of that agreement.
Mr. LEAHY. One of the reasons I didn't want to interrupt the Senator
when he was speaking was that I wanted to hear his whole statement. If
he would allow me to finish so that he may hear----
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEAHY. I will indicate who the Senators were, because the Senator
knows all of them well: Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of
the Judiciary Committee; Senator Lott, the distinguished majority
leader; Senator Daschle, the distinguished Democratic leader; Senator
McCain, and others. I will give the Senator all of the names, but those
are the ones who come to mind initially.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder. Could I have a dialogue about that following
the statement? I don't intend to interrupt the statement. The Senator
from Vermont mentioned five. There are 100 Senators. It would be good
to have a dialog about that following the Senator's statement.
Mr. LEAHY. I will be glad to put it in the Record. I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record the letter of July 8, 1997,
signed by Senators, McCain, Burns, Leahy, Moseley-Braun, Daschle,
Coats, Hatch, Boxer, Lott, as well as the numerous names I mentioned,
such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of
Elementary and School Principals, and others who signed. I will give
copies to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 8, 1997.
Dear Colleague: The television industry and leading parent
groups have agreed on a series of improvements to the
Television Parental Guidelines System that will substantially
enhance the ability of parents to supervise their children's
television viewing.
Given human subjectivity and the sheer volume of television
programming, no system will ever be perfect. However, we do
believe this revised system more closely approximates what
the Congress and American parents had in mind when the V Chip
legislation became the law of the land.
It must also be remembered that development of a ratings
system is only the first installment of the promise the
Congress made to American parents. Until the V Chip is
readily available in the marketplace, parents will have
information, but not the means to act on it by blocking from
their homes programs they consider inappropriate for their
children. Therefore:
(1) We will recommend to the FCC that it move expeditiously
to find the revised guidelines to be ``acceptable'' as
defined by the Telecommunications Act. Moreover, we believe
this should be the FCC's universally mandated system for
television set manufacturers to follow in putting V Chips
into television sets sold in this county;
(2) To allow prompt and effective implementation of the
revised parental guidelines system, we believe there should
be a substantial period of governmental forbearance during
which further legislation or regulation concerning television
ratings, content or scheduling should be set aside. Parents,
the industry, and television set manufacturers will need time
for this revised system to take hold in the marketplace. The
industry will need time to adjust to the new guidelines and
then apply them in a consistent manner across myriad
channels. Set manufacturers will need to design user
friendly, V Chip equipped sets and bring them to market. And
most important, parents will need several years to utilize
all the tools given to them so that they may act to control
their children's television viewing. Additional government
intervention will only delay proper implementation of the new
guideline system.
This has been a long and difficult process. We acknowledge
that any system should indeed be voluntary and consistent
with the First Amendment. That is why we believe the
voluntary agreement that has been reached, coupled with
forbearance on further governmental action as described
above, is the best way to proceed in order to balance
legitimate First Amendment concerns while giving American
parents the information they need in order to help them
supervise their children's television viewing.
Sincerely,
John McCain; Conrad Burns; Patrick Leahy; Carol Moseley-
Braun; Tom Daschle; Dan Coats; Orrin Hatch; Barbara
Boxer; Trent Lott.
____

July 10, 1997.
The attached modifications of the TV Parental Guideline
System have been developed collaboratively by members of the
industry and the advocacy community. We find this combined
age and content based system to be acceptable and believe
that it should be designated as the mandated system on the V-
chip and used to rate all television programming, except for
news and sports, which are exempt, and unedited movies with
an MPAA rating aired on premium cable channels. We urge the
FCC to so rule as expeditiously as possible.
We further believe that the system deserves a fair chance
to work in the marketplace to allow parents an opportunity to
understand and use the system. Accordingly, the undersigned
organizations will work to: educate the public and parents
about the V-chip and the TV Parental Guideline System;
encourage publishers of TV periodicals,

[[Page S5207]]

newspapers and journals to include the ratings with their
program listings; and evaluate the system. Therefore, we urge
governmental leaders to allow this process to proceed
unimpeded by pending or new legislation that would undermine
the intent of this agreement or disrupt the harmony and good
faith of this process.

Motion Picture Association of America
National Association of Broadcasters
National Cable Television Association
American Medical Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Psychological Association
Center for Media Education
Children's Defense Fund
Children Now
National Association of Elementary School Principal
National Education Association
National PTA
____

May 12, 1999.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: We are contacting you on an urgent
matter regarding the Juvenile Justice Bill now before the
Senate. Senator Hollings' ``safe harbor'' amendment runs
counter to the television ratings/V-Chip approach developed
two years ago.
In July, 1997 together with members of the non-profit and
advocacy community we developed the combined age and content
based rating system. At that time, you and a number of your
colleagues agreed to a substantial period of governmental
forbearance so that the V-Chip television rating system could
have a chance to work in the marketplace. There is evidence
that this strategy is paying off. Just this week, the Kaiser
Family Foundation released a poll showing that 77% of parents
said that if they had a V-Chip in their home, they would use
the technology.
Since the first V-Chip television set will arrive on the
marketplace in July, we should allow parents an opportunity
to understand and use the system before moving too quickly on
further legislation. We hope you will support the freedom of
parents to use their own discretion--and the V-chip--when
deciding what programs are appropriate for their families.
Therefore, we urge you to vote to table the Hollings
amendment.
Sincerely,
Jack Valenti,
President & CEO, Motion Picture Association of America.
Decker Anstrom,
President & CEO, National Cable Television Association.
Edward O. Fritts,
President & CEO, National Association of Broadcasters.
____

Center for Media Education,

Washington, DC, May 12, 1999.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: In July, 1997, together, with members
of the entertainment industry, we developed the combine age
and content based rating system. I favor this system and
believe that it deserves a fair chance to work in the
marketplace.
This week, the Center for Media Education announced a
national campaign to educate parents about the V-Chip TV
Ratings system. The first V-chip televisions will arrive in
the marketplace in July. I urge governmental leaders to allow
parents an opportunity to understand and use the V-chip
system. I continue to believe that legislation such as S. 876
would undermine the intent of the agreement we signed on July
10, 1997.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Montgomery, Ph.D,
President.

Mr. LEAHY. Obviously, our signing such a letter does not bind the
distinguished Senator from North Dakota nor the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina, as he and I have discussed. I do feel having
stated my commitment binds me. As the Senator from North Dakota knows,
I have a reputation of once having given a commitment I never go back
on it. I do not suggest that he or anybody else is bound by the
agreement that we worked out to give the V-chip a chance. I am
suggesting that I assume the Senators who did sign on to that would
feel that way.
What we want to do is what I still want to do. I commend the Senators
who worked on developing the V-chip, to allow families to create their
own individualized family viewing system. I did this when my children
were young by reading reviews and determining what they should or
should not watch or read.
Now 50 percent of the new TVs will have the V-chip by July 1 of this
year; 100 percent of the new TVs will have the V-chip by January of
next year. That is why Senators Hatch, Lott, Daschle, McCain, and
others signed this letter, so we can ensure that the industry has
guidelines and ratings and TV manufacturers will install V-chips. By
doing that we move the ball forward very quickly. The TV manufacturers,
as they promised us, are getting the job done.
I want to live up to my signed commitment with the other Senators. I
want to live up to the expectations of the AMA, the National PTA, the
Children's Defense Fund, and the other groups I mentioned. TV parental
guidelines and the V-chip give parents the tools to determine the
programming children may watch.
In addition, Charles Ergen, the CEO of EchoStar, said this could have
serious unintended impacts. Echo-Star gives parents who subscribe to
satellite service a powerful tool. His V-chip not only allows parents
to block out R-rated shows, but they can block out shows based on
specific concerns about language, drug use, violence, graphic violence,
sexuality, or other considerations they might have.
Under this amendment, even though they have done all that to
cooperate with us, Echo-Star would be punished because they use
national feeds and they transmit signals across time zones. They
transmit not only into Kentucky or Vermont but in California, Oregon,
Ohio, and everywhere in between. They go across the three time zones of
this country. They provide the programming for multiple time zones at
once on a national basis. I assume they probably do it in the time
zones of Alaska and Hawaii, which goes even beyond the three in the
Continental United States.
Under the longstanding law, satellite carriers cannot alter the
signals they are given which are authorized under a compulsory license.
Depending on how long the family time period is, it may be impossible
for satellite carriers to comply because they are required to use a
national feed from distant stations. For example, on the west coast,
the time is earlier than the east coast, where a lot of the programming
originates. With the uplink of station WOR in New York or WGN in
Chicago, an hour later, they are going to be in noncompliance with this
amendment on the west coast.
One option for them would be for satellite TV carriers to black out
programming on the west coast or simply take the programming in the
east coast and shift it to very late hours, extremely late hours for
east coast viewers, which is the allowed hour for west coast viewers.

Frankly, I think use of the V-chip allows parents to block out what
they want and will work much better than blocking out entire time zones
in the United States.
I want to also note that two-thirds of American households have no
children under the age of 18. If this amendment were enacted, American
television viewers of all ages would lose control over the programming
available to them. I repeat, two-thirds of American households have no
children under the age of 18.
There are, I believe, serious constitutional problems with this
amendment. I get very concerned about the Federal Government or any
Federal Government agency policing the content of TV programming.
For example, there would be a $25,000 fine for each day there is
violent video programming. Is one gunshot in a show considered violent
programming? What about two? What if it is a history show that shows
the assassination of a President or a world leader? Is that violence?
I am reminded of the old joke of religious leaders of different
faiths getting together and they wanted to start the meeting with a
prayer, but they couldn't agree on a prayer so they had to cancel the
conference.
I worry once again that we denigrate the role of parents, especially
the amendment which considers parents almost irrelevant to the
development of children. I have been blessed to be married for 37 years
this year, and I have three wonderful children. My wife and I took a
very serious interest in what movies they saw, what TV programs they
watched, what books they read. We tried to guide them the right way. I
like the idea that both my wife and I were making those decisions and
not somebody else. Someone else might have different moral values,
might have a different sense of what was appropriate and what is not
appropriate. I really didn't want to turn it over to

[[Page S5208]]

the hands of a government agency--local, State, or Federal. I felt that
was my responsibility, a responsibility that I considered one of the
most important roles I had as a parent.
I also think if we let the government do it, let the government take
over the parenting, then if something goes wrong, we blame them. It is
harder to deal with issues such as bad parenting and lack of parental
supervision if we can only blame ourselves, but that should be our
responsibility as parents, first and foremost. It was the
responsibility of my parents when I grew up in Vermont and the
responsibility of my wife and I as our children grew up.
I don't know how the government steps into the shoes of parents by
involving our government in the day-to-day regulation of the contents
of television shows, movies, or other forms of speech. I recently
visited a country which is one of the last of the countries with such
restrictions. I prefer we make those choices. Parents should be able to
use the V-chips offered by satellite TV providers and by TV
manufacturers to block out programming they consider offensive for
their children.
Anything any parents want to block out for their child, I don't care
what it is--it could be C-SPAN, with me speaking now; if they can even
get the children to watch it, they may want to block that out--that is
fine; parents should have that right.
I want to remind everyone that the Supreme Court has noted:

Laws regulating speech for the protection of children have
no limiting principle, and a well-intentioned law restricting
protected speech on the basis of content is, nevertheless,
state-sponsored censorship.

So, while I do not support this amendment, I do not want my comments
to be interpreted as backing off at all in my pride in the work of
Senator Hollings and Senator Dorgan on these issues. They are
concerned, and rightly so, about the content of some of the things we
see. There are some things, even if they are shown late at night, I
would not watch and I am 59 years old. I was a prosecutor for 9 years.
I went to murder scenes. I saw some of the most violent conduct ever. I
still have nightmares remembering some of those scenes. I do not want
to see them replayed.
There are some, because of their offensive nature, I am not
interested in. I do not want to see them, but I will make that
decision. But for parents, for their help, we would not have the V-chip
without the work of the Senator from South Carolina, the work he and
his colleagues have done. It is not only work, it is agitation, I might
say. I can almost repeat some of the speeches the Senator gave to push
them that far forward. He gives new meaning to the term ``stentorian
tones.'' They are stentorian tones in a clarion call, rarely heard
anymore in these halls.
I consider myself privileged, over the years, not only to have had
the Senator from South Carolina as a close personal friend--both he and
his wife are very close personal friends of my wife and myself--he has
been a mentor to me. So I commend him for what he has done.
I mention all this because he is not a newcomer to the debate. He has
been a parent of this debate. I do not want anybody to lose sight that
we all are in this together in this regard. If we have young children--
mine are now grown, but I assume it would be the same attitude as
towards grandchildren--there are things on television, just as there
are in the movies, that we do not want our children to see. Most of us
do not want to see them ourselves, but we certainly do not want the
children to see them. I think the system we have set up is one that is
working. I would love to see something done in a cooperative way.
It is moving rapidly forward. If that could be done without the hand
of Government on it, it would make the Senator from Vermont far more
comfortable. If they are unable to move forward, if they do not utilize
the breathing spell they were given, that is one thing. But they seem
to be moving forward during that breathing spell, and I would like to
see that work without a heavy hand.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield such time as necessary to the Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from
Vermont. I would not suggest he go back on an agreement he made with
anybody. But I do want to make this point clearly. On January 31, 1994,
I introduced legislation in the Senate calling for the V-chip. It was
the first legislation introduced in the Senate on the V-chip. Within a
year or so, with myself, my colleague and others, including Senator
Conrad especially, and Senator Lieberman, the V-chip passed the Senate
and became law. There is nothing, no agreement at all for most Members
of the Senate about some V-chip versus any other restriction on
legislative action.
The letter that was read earlier, that might have been from some
people who were not necessarily involved in the V-chip issue. I am the
one who introduced it. There might have been some people who made some
commitments to somebody else that they would not do something. That is
their business. If there are 6 or 8 or 10 of them, that is their
business. But that is not the business of the other 90 Senators. They
have made no such agreement.
This proposal complements the V-chip. This proposal works with the V-
chip. This proposal is not at odds with the V-chip, and there is no
such agreement I am aware of with almost all Members of the Senate that
we should not take this baby step forward on this sensible proposition.
One more point: This is not content-based Government involvement. We
already have a description that says if you are a television
broadcaster you cannot, at 7:30 in the evening, broadcast the seven
dirty words. You cannot do that. Why? Because we have decided certain
things are inappropriate and the Supreme Court has upheld our
capability of doing that through the Federal Communications Commission.
It is also inappropriate, and we used to think as a country that it
was, to broadcast excessively violent programs in the middle hours of
the evening when children are watching. The Senator from South Carolina
and I simply want to go back to that commonsense standard. Suggesting
somehow that we have no capability or no interest in determining what
some broadcaster somewhere throws into America's living rooms is just
outside the debate about what is real. What is real is we have a real
responsibility. That is what is being addressed by the amendment
offered here by the Senator from South Carolina.
Again, it is a baby step. I do not want anybody to be confused that
somehow this is at odds with the V-chip. I introduced the V-chip. This
is not at odds with the V-chip. It complements the V-chip, and this
Congress and this Senate ought to agree to this amendment and we ought
to do it this morning.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes and 16 seconds.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I just came down after
listening to the debate. I want to ask both my colleagues to put me on
as an original cosponsor.
The second thing I want to say is in this debate we have been having
on this juvenile justice bill, part of the context for this has been
the nightmare of Littleton, CO. That is always, ever present.
I read a piece the other day--I don't even remember the author, I say
to my colleague from South Carolina--but I thought it was very
balanced. The author made the point: Yes, you want to go after the
guns, but you also want to go after the culture of violence. I think we
have to do both. Yes, you want to do much more for prevention for kids
before they get in trouble in the first place. Yes, I argue, you want
to have support services and mental health services. All these pieces
go together.
But if I could ask my colleague very briefly, will he just describe
this amendment? Will my colleague just briefly describe the very
essence of this amendment? Because it seems to me to be very, very
mild. I want to be sure I am correct in my understanding.

[[Page S5209]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. The essence of the amendment is to reinstitute the
family hour, and during that time have no excessive, gratuitous
violence. That is all it is. We do that right now with indecency,
constitutionally, at the FCC level. Just say that excessive, gratuitous
violence be treated similarly. It is working in the United Kingdom, it
is working Europe and it is working down in Australia. It is tried and
true. They want to restore it. To those people who say they want to
restore family values, here is the family hour.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I think it needs to be repeated one more time what a
moderate, commonsense proposal we have here. This is constitutional.
This is the right thing to do. As far as I am concerned, any steps we
can take, albeit small steps, but significant steps that can reduce
this violence, that can deal with this cultural violence, I think is
absolutely the right thing to do. I add my support.
I heard my colleague from Vermont speaking as a grandfather. Our
children are all older, but we have children, and now grandchildren: 8,
5 and almost 4. This is the right thing to do. There should be
overwhelmingly strong support for this proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to retain a little time here for
the closing, but let me go right to the point with respect to the
remarks of my distinguished friend from Vermont.
We were not part of any agreement. That was another one of those so-
called stonewalls. The significant part of the agreement was the two
leaders were on it, and the agencies and entities at that time were
told that was all they were going to get. You learn in this town to go
along with what you can get from the leadership.
Don't come down to the floor and say it's a leadership vote, because
the leader himself has voted this particular measure out of the
Commerce Committee on two occasions. He knows the need of the V-chip
being in all sets, 100 percent. Wait a minute. The average person holds
onto his or her television set at least, they say in the hearings,
between 8, 10, 12 years--or an average of 10 years. So you have a 10-
year period here. They are not going to replace all the sets. We know
this with the digital television problem we have.
In that light, we want to make absolutely sure we do something, as my
distinguished friend from North Dakota says, that is consonant,
helpful, and a part of the V-chip, if it will work. We have shown how
complicated it is. It is going to be a delayed good, if any at all.
I retain the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I should put all Senators on notice that we
are just about out of time for debate with regard to the Hollings
amendment on his side and I have somewhere near 42 minutes on our side.
I intend to yield back some of that time so we can go to a vote on this
matter.
I understand Senator Cochran wants to take about 10 minutes to speak
on this amendment. I will take a few minutes now.
I rise to explain why I will ultimately move to table the Hollings
amendment today. I struggled with this decision because there is much
to be commended in my dear friend's amendment. I have a lot of respect
for him. He knows that. I think it is important we work to make our
culture safer for our families and for children, and that we make
entertainment choices more family friendly. No question about it. We
should certainly work to make television entertainment, which is so
ubiquitous, less coarse, especially when children are watching.
Having said that, I do have a number of concerns with this amendment.
Members of the satellite television industry, which we are working to
make more competitive with cable, have expressed concerns with this
amendment. Because much of the fare on satellites is delivered
nationally, they will have difficulty complying. If a satellite carrier
picks up programming on the east coast, where much programming
originates, it will likely be out of compliance, given that fare
appropriate for later hours on the east coast will be beamed
simultaneously across the time zones to viewers on the west coast, and
across the country, where obviously it will be earlier.
Additionally, opponents of this amendment have raised constitutional
concerns. Although I have not had an opportunity to review or visit all
of these constitutional issues, I do not believe that the
constitutional concerns are clearly right or that opponents have an
open-and-shut constitutional case. I do believe the issues bear careful
consideration.
Most of all, I must vote to table this amendment because of a
commitment I made to my colleagues in 1997 in connection with getting
the voluntary television ratings and V-chip systems in place. At that
time, I was approached by a number of colleagues to sign a Dear
Colleague letter taking a stand against regulating television ratings,
content, or scheduling until those systems had time to get underway.
That Dear Colleague letter is dated July 8, 1997, and was signed by
Senators Lott, Daschle, McCain, Leahy, as well as myself, and other
Republicans and Democrats. I made that commitment then and I believe I
need to honor it now.
Some may believe that an earlier amendment which I supported had a
similar impact. The Brownback-Hatch-Lieberman amendment allowed the
industry to develop a voluntary code of conduct but did not impose any
regulations on the industry. It also was a comprehensive amendment and
had much greater application than the television ratings, content, and
scheduling at issue in the V-chip and ratings process. It applied to
television, movies, music, video games, and the Internet. At that time
yesterday, I recognized my earlier commitment and raised and
distinguished it.
Therefore, although I find much to commend in the amendment of the
Senator from South Carolina, because of my prior commitment to forbear
from supporting legislation or recommendation concerning television
ratings, content, or scheduling, I believe I must honor that pledge to
my colleagues and vote to table the Hollings amendment.
There is a lot of very bad programming on television in our country
today. I think the satellite viewership problem is a big problem. To
make someone liable because they have to carry the satellite
transmission at a time that fits within the time constraints of this
amendment on the west coast--coming from the east coast, it may be in
compliance, but the west coast may not be, and the satellite
transmitter will be liable--is a matter of great problematic concern to
me.
I share the same concern my friend from South Carolina shares with
regard to what is being televised and on the airwaves today, especially
during times when young people are watching. On the other hand, I have
a very strong commitment to uphold the first amendment and to be very
reticent to start dictating what can and cannot be done on network
television or on television, period.
As for cleaning up the media, we did have the Brownback-Hatch-
Lieberman amendment. Senators Brownback and Lieberman have worked long
and hard to come up with some solutions that hopefully will be
voluntary, that hopefully will resolve these questions.
That amendment yesterday was adopted overwhelmingly. It requires the
FTC and Department of Justice to do a comprehensive study of the
entertainment industry. It seems to me that is a very reasonable,
important thing to do and we ought to get that information before we
make any final decisions in this area.
Also, it had a provision asking the National Institutes of Health to
study the impact of violence and unsuitable material on children and
child development. That brought a lot of angst to a number of people.
Having the FTC look into these things brought a lot of angst to a lot
of people. I might add, having the Department of Justice do it has
caused a lot of concern.
I think that amendment, including its other provisions on antitrust,
will go a long way toward cleaning up the exposure of minors to violent
material. I would like to see that work and I would like to see these
studies done before we go this drastically to a solution in the Senate.
At the appropriate time I will move to table the amendment, and I
hope my colleagues will support the motion to

[[Page S5210]]

table with the commitment from me--and I think others will make it,
too--that we will continue to revisit this area, because we are all
concerned. It is not only the province of those who are for this
amendment; all of us are concerned about what is happening to our
children in our society today.
I see that Senator Cochran has arrived. I yield 10 minutes to Senator
Cochran.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator put me on that list for 10 minutes when
Senator Cochran has finished?
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to do that. I suppose the Senator from
South Carolina wants to end the debate, and then I will yield back
whatever time I have remaining at that time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cochran be given
10 minutes; immediately following Senator Cochran, Senator Boxer be
given 10 minutes; and immediately following Senator Boxer, Senator
Sessions be given 10 minutes. Then I will be prepared to yield back the
remainder of our time as soon as the Senator from South Carolina is
through.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 1029
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Utah
for yielding me time from his debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
10 minutes under unanimous consent.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
It is rare that I disagree with my wonderful friend, Fritz Hollings,
and my wonderful friend, Byron Dorgan, but I do on this particular
amendment that is pending before us. I think the debate is about this:
Do we believe there is violence in the entertainment industry? Yes. So
there is agreement there. Does it upset all of us when we see it, when
we know kids are seeing it? Yes.
But how should we deal with it? Should Government become parents and
decide what our kids watch or should Government give parents the tools
to decide what their kids should watch? And I come down on the side of
making sure Government gives parents the tools to decide what their
children should watch, and not on the side of those who in essence want
the Government, through the bureaucracy, the FCC, to determine what
shows should or should not be on television.
Again, I do not know who is in the FCC. I think I know the chairman.
I think he is a terrific person. But I do not want to say that the FCC
members know more about our country's children than the parents do. So
if Government can play the role of giving parents the power to
determine what their kids watch, I think we are doing the right thing.
As a matter of fact, 2 years ago that is what we did do. We required
that all new television sets have a V-chip installed. And 50 percent of
all the new sets will have the V-chip by July 1; and all the new sets
will have it by January 1. So we are moving to the point where all TV
sets will have the V-chip when you buy it.
I think it is a smart answer, the V-chip, to dealing with the issue
of violence on television. It is a chip that allows the parents to
program what shows their children can and cannot see. There you have
it. Very simply, it is government doing what I think is the right
thing, giving parents this tool, this powerful tool, putting the
parents in charge, not the government in charge.
I worry about going down that path of giving the FCC or any other
agency or, frankly, any Senator the power to decide what show goes on
at what time. It is very subjective; it is a path that I think we
should avoid.
Now, the Center for Media Education, which helped develop the TV
rating system and is undertaking a national campaign to educate parents
about the V-chip, they do not like this particular proposal that is
before us. They say ``it would undermine the intent'' of the voluntary
rating system and the V-chip.
So why would we, 2 years ago, work very hard, all of us together, to
develop this V-chip and then, in the stroke of a vote, if we were to
pass the Hollings amendment, undermine what the purpose was of that V-
chip?
Also, the Senate yesterday adopted the Brownback amendment, and we
know that is going to launch into an investigation of the entertainment
industry to see whether it is marketing to kids violent programming. An
amendment of mine would also extend that to investigate the gun
manufacturers.
I was very happy to see the Senate accept that, because, as I said
yesterday, to point the finger of blame at one industry is outrageous.
To point the finger of blame at one person or one group of people is
outrageous. There is not one of us who can walk away from the issue of
our violent culture and say: It has nothing to do with me. I am just
perfect. It is the other guy.

So we undertook this issue 2 years ago. We passed this V-chip
proposal. Senator Brownback, yesterday, encouraged the entertainment
industry to step up to the plate and develop solutions by giving an
antitrust exemption to the entertainment industry so they can sit down
together to come up with even more solutions than the V-chip, because,
frankly, they need to talk to one another. If it means they say at a
certain time we are not going to show these violent shows, that would
be terrific. That would be helpful, and that would mean that the
parents' job is easier. They don't have to worry as much as they do
now. I agree, they have to worry plenty now.
I also want to do this because it is very easy to get up here and
blast an industry. In every industry, there are some positive steps.
Even the gun manufacturers, which I believe are marketing to children,
and many of them are not responsible, there are some who are selling
their guns with child safety locks, and they are doing it on a
voluntary basis. I praise them. As a matter of fact, the President had
those companies to the White House, and he praised them.
I think we ought to look at some of the good things the entertainment
industry is doing for our children. Viacom, through the Nickelodeon
channel, periodically airs programs to help children work through
violence-related issues. In this example that I am going to give you,
all these examples, I am not going to mention PBS, because they are
incredible as far as producing programs for our children that are
wonderful.
I was sitting watching one of the programs with my grandchild the
other day, and kids were talking to each other, young kids, about 10,
11, about the pressures in their lives. It was terrific. I enjoyed it.
I think my little grandson was too young to understand it. But for the
9-year-olds, the 8-year-olds, the 10-year-olds, there are some good
things.
MTV has ``Fight For Your Rights, Take a Stand Against Violence.'' It
is a program that gives young people advice on reducing violence in
their communities. Now, they also do some things on there that do not
give that message. I agree. But are we just going to bash and bash and
bash? Let's at least recognize there are some efforts here.
The Walt Disney Company has produced and aired numerous public
service announcements on issues such as school violence and has
featured in its evening TV shows various antiviolence themes.
We want more of that, and if we don't get more of that, we are going
to just make sure that parents can, in fact, program their TVs so the
kids do not see the garbage and the violence and the death and all of
the things that Senator Hollings is right to point out are impacting
and influencing our children.
There are shows and episodes that glorify violence, and there are
shows and episodes that denounce violence.
I think we need to be careful in this amendment of the slippery slope
we could go down if we decide in our frustration and our worry about
our children that government should step in and become the parents. The
V-chip, the Brownback amendment, those two things give parents the
tools they need

[[Page S5211]]

and lets the industry sit down together and focus on the issue of
violence.
So we have some efforts underway that are very important. I do not
want to see us short circuit those efforts.
This is a difficult issue because we know we have a problem here.
When we have a problem, let us take steps that don't lead us into
another problem. We had a debate in front of the Commerce Committee. I
was there and had the opportunity to testify before my friend. It had
to do with ratings. There was a big debate over whether government
should rate these movies and TV shows or whether the industry should
undertake it. I will never forget this. One Congressman came up and he
said: I can't believe what I just saw on TV.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
Mr. HATCH. That would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I remember what happened then. This Congressman came over
from the other side and testified that he couldn't believe that
``Schindler's List'' was put on TV and that he felt ``Schindler's
List'' had obscenity in it. A big debate ensued, because many thought
``Schindler's List'' was one of the best things that was shown on TV,
that it taught our young people about the Holocaust. There were some
rough scenes in it that were historically accurate.
All it proved to me is that the eye of the beholder is so important
here. Here was someone saying that was one of the best things you could
put on TV to teach our children, and here is somebody else saying it
was one of the worst things.
Keep government out of these subjective decisions. Give parents the
tools. Let them decide if ``Schindler's List'' is right for their
children, or any other program.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, violence in television shows, video games,
and movies horrifies us as parents and grandparents. However, I support
the tabling of the Hollings amendment because, in my judgment, it would
have gone too far in giving the Government the responsibility for
keeping violent television programming away from our children. The
principal responsibility belongs in the hands of parents and
grandparents. Putting this responsibility in an agency like the FCC to
determine what is too violent and what is not is not only of
questionable constitutionality, it would foster the idea that the
Government should be doing this job. That confuses and defuses the
clear message to parents that the principal responsibility is theirs.
We should give parents the tools to do this as we have tried to do
through the ``V-chip'' filtering technology. The first V-chip equipped
televisions are expected to become available this summer. We should
also focus the principal responsibility on parents, so that the V-chip
is effectively used.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the advent of the television began the
extraordinary advance in video technology. Families came together to
witness such great programs as: The Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy,
Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. The television
revolutionized technology and media, and replaced the radio as the main
source of family entertainment. The television is an instrumental part
of American society, it provides us with news, education, and
entertainment and will likely continue to do so.
In recent years, however, the entertainment industry has promoted
programming unfit for the children of the next generation. No longer
can families come together to watch television without having to see
material unfit for their children. In the wake of recent events, it has
become clear that exposure to violent programming does in fact play an
influential role in children's behavior. It is regrettable that it has
come to the point where it may be necessary for Congress to take action
in the oversight of television programming. The Children's Protection
from Violent Programming Act creates a ``safe harbor'' and eliminates
the broadcast of violent programming aired during hours when children
are likely to be a substantial portion of the viewing audience.
While I have reservations with this amendment, I am willing to stand
in support of it. Admittedly, this amendment gives the Federal
Communications Commission additional power to regulate television
programming--even when two-thirds of American households have no
children under the age of 18. Clearly this amendment will restrict the
programming available to viewers of all ages. I also have reservations
since the TV rating system, already in place, will provide parents with
specific information about the content of a television program. V-chips
will be incorporated into all new television sets by January 1, 2000.
In addition, I am concerned that by passing this legislation, we will
be giving the Federal Communications Commission additional authority to
define violent programming far beyond that which is necessary.
The fact of the matter is that to date the entertainment industry has
not yet taken responsibility for themselves. Television programs of an
adult nature are undermining and contradicting the virtues parents are
trying to teach. Likewise, research from more than ten thousand
medical, pediatric, psychological, and sociological studies show that
television violence increases violent and aggressive behavior in
society. Astonishingly, the murder rate in the United States doubled
within 15 years after television was introduced into American homes.
It pains me to stand before you today and say that the federal
government may need to regulate yet another industry. What we need is
smaller, smarter government. Without the cooperation of television
networks, however, Congress has no choice but to give the FCC the
authority to impose itself upon the entertainment industry. Each of us,
Congress, television networks, and parents need to come together for
the sake of our children. Our children are the future of this country,
and if we as a nation are going to live together in peace, each of us
must take the responsibility to teach our children the difference
between right and wrong.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote to table the
Hollings amendment regarding television programming and I wanted to say
a few words about why I am going to cast this vote. Television can be a
valuable entertainment and educational tool and I commend my good
friend, Senator Hollings for his work in this important area. I share
his concern for the impact that violent programming has on children.
However, I have concerns about a government entity, the FCC,
determining for everyone what is deemed ``violent programming''. This
amendment has critical free speech implications. What would constitute
violent programming? Would a documentary or an historical piece be
deemed as such because it depicted violent acts or victims of violence?
These determinations are best made by parents--the people who know
their children best. The impact of this amendment would be overly
broad. In fact, two-thirds of American households have no children
under the age of 18. Further, I have concerns about the government
mandating another solution before current technology practices have
been given a chance. Most television broadcast and cable networks have
implemented a voluntary ratings system that gives advance information
about program content. The TV Parental Guidelines were designed in
consultation with advocacy groups and approved for use by the Federal
Communications Commission last year. These voluntary systems are an
important step in the right direction, because it allows us to think
more carefully about what we watch and what our children watch.
Congress also required that an electronic chip, called a V-chip, be
included in newly manufactured television sets to allow parents to
screen out material that they find inappropriate for their children.
The first television sets equipped with V-chips will arrive in stores
July 1, 1999; all new sets will contain a V-chip by July 1, 2000. I
support the use of this valuable and innovative technology which
enhances our ability to make careful choices.
Just this week, FCC Commissioner William Kennard announced the
creation of a task force to monitor and assist in the roll-out of the
V-chip. Special emphasis will be given to educate

[[Page S5212]]

parents about the availability and use of the technology. In fact, the
Kaiser Family Foundation recently released a poll stating that 77
percent of parents said that if they had a V-chip in their home, they
would use it.
We need to give the integrated V-chip and ratings system a chance to
work. It is time to honor the commitment that was made in 1997--to
allow this system to proceed unimpeded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am intrigued by the Hollings amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
Mr. HATCH. We said that after you finished we would go to Senator
Hollings. With Senator Hollings' permission, I will yield 5 minutes, if
I have it, or the remainder of my time, to the distinguished Senator
from Montana, and then Senator Hollings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this fits along with the general view of
mine. We are both lawyers, and Senator Hollings is a better lawyer than
I, but I think we have made television prime time movies too much a
matter of first amendment freedoms, and not enough of a matter of
common sense. To say that you have to meet certain standards during
certain hours of the day when our children may be impacted by that does
not, in a significant way, prohibit a person from exercising what we
generally understood to be free speech when we founded this country.
Speech was generally understood, at the most fundamental level, as a
communication about ideas and issues, and that you would be able to
articulate and defend and promote your issues. It did not mean--and I
don't think the Founding Fathers contemplated--that every form of video
of vicious murder or sexual relations or obscenity could be published
in print and in our homes.
In fact, we have laws all over America that flatly prohibit certain
degrees of obscenity. Indecency cannot be prohibited, but things that
are determined as a matter of law to be obscene are flatly prohibited
anywhere in America. So, therefore, they say that on the public
airwaves, which we license people to use, they have to be committed to
the public service. They have to give so many hours of public service
advertisements, and we monitor the stations to make sure that they do
so. To say there is no Government agency that can say certain things
can't be shown during limited periods of time, to me, is strange law. I
don't think it is quite right.
In addition, I know a lot of people who have spoken on the floor here
today--and over the last several days, are worried. Also, the President
has spoken about his concern that in the afterschool hours children are
not supervised. Many children have parents who work swing shifts or
parents who have to be out in the yard or doing other things while they
are inside watching TV, and they may not have a V-chip yet. Do we have
no responsibility to those children? Is it sufficient to just say it is
their parents' fault?
Some say if you are a parent, you can control whatever your children
watch. Those of us who are parents know that is not precisely accurate.
We can work at it hard, and if you are a parent who is home most of the
time, you can do a fairly good job. But even then a determined young
person can pretty well watch what they want. The point is, the showing
of any one violent scene is not going to cause a normal child to become
a murderer. The point is, what happens if every night kids who maybe
are not healthy are seeing on their television images of violence--and
in years gone by, they have gotten more graphic--and at the same time
they get in their car and they play an audio or CD of Marilyn Manson,
who has extremely violent lyrics, or they turn on the computer and play
computer games. I was looking at one and the pointer was a chopped-off
hand with blood dripping off it. That is humorous to some degree, but
where you have it constantly, it is a problem.
First of all, in my wrestling with the Hollings amendment, is it
appropriate for the Government to do so? The FCC does all kinds of
other limitations on programming. Is it appropriate for them to analyze
the content for violence? I have had my staff do some research of the
law on it.
First of all, my general opinion is that the current state of the law
is too restrictive on the ability of the Government to contain what is
shown in the homes of America. I think it is too restrictive. I don't
think the Constitution does that. But the current state of the law, I
believe, is too restrictive, and these are some of the things I have
discovered.
Under the Hollings amendment, we would perhaps be considered to be
pushing the envelope a little bit. But I am not sure that we would
because it would prohibit distribution of violent video programming
during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a
substantial portion of the audience. It would require the FCC to reach
a definition of what violent programming is and determine the timeframe
for it. It would permit the FCC to exempt news and sports programming,
and it would have penalties for those who violate that.

The closest law we can find on point is on the FCC's regulation of
indecent programming, which has survived challenge in the courts.
Obscene material is the kind of material that is illegal, where the
Supreme Court has stated that this material can be so obscene and so
lacking in any merit, that communities in the country can ban it from
being distributed in their communities. Indecent material is the kind
of material that is less than obscene. So what do we do about indecent
material? The FCC defines indecent material--and I am paraphrasing--as
this: Patently offensive descriptions based on local community
standards of sexual and excretory functions or organs.
Government regulation of indecent material is possible, but it has to
survive a standard of strict scrutiny. The courts are going to look at
it very strictly to make sure the first amendment is not being
undermined.
In Action for Children's Television v. FCC, a 1995 case decided in
the District of Columbia, the DC court of appeals--which is one step
from the U.S. Supreme Court--upheld the FCC safe harbor regulation of
indecent material, provided the regulation was the least restrictive
means to achieve the Government's compelling interest in protecting
young people from indecent programming.
It didn't deal with violence. The original ban on indecent
programming between 6 a.m. and midnight contained an exception for
public programmers to broadcast indecent material between 10 p.m. and
midnight.
A lot of public broadcasters quit at midnight. So the law is a
compromise that if you are a public programmer, you can show this
material at 10 o'clock and you don't have to wait until midnight like
everybody else.
The court found that this exception was not narrowly drawn--not the
most narrowly drawn restriction and mandated that you have this kind of
law and everybody has the 10 o'clock rule. Some of them can't have 10
and some have midnight. But it upheld it. The Supreme Court upheld that
restriction and that rule by the FCC. It was appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, the final arbiter. They affirmed the ruling without
opinion. They did not hear the case, but they did not overrule, and
they allowed to stand the opinion of the district court.
So I think the difference we have here is that we are dealing with
violence as opposed to what may be defined under the law as indecent.
I think we are raising a very good point. I am seriously considering
this amendment. I understand those who have concerns about it. My basic
inclination is to say that we ought to care about children. We know for
a fact that many children are at home and unsupervised. We have a
responsibility and it is not in violation of the first amendment to
deal with this and have some restrictions on it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I hope that Americans will look upon this
debate. I think it is indicative of how hard and how difficult it is to
deal with this issue. One cannot paint with a broad brush, whether we
are talking about firearms or entertainment programming or games, or
anything else. We cannot paint with a broad brush.

[[Page S5213]]

We are under the heels of tragedies such as Littleton, CO. We are
very quick to blame. We are also reluctant to admit our own
shortcomings in assuming our responsibilities as citizens, as parents,
as schoolteachers, and as members of a community.
This particular amendment pretty much says, let no good deed go
unpunished. It is too broad. We may table this amendment, and it should
be tabled. But I hope that those who are in the business of
entertainment and providing programming in its many forms, I hope this
message gets to downtown Burbank and Hollywood and Vine.
This basically, if you look at the amendment, is pretty much a
lawyer's amendment. It says:

We shall define the term ``hours'' when children are
reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the
audience, and the term ``violent video programming.''

I will tell you that argument will go on for just a little more than
a moon, because we know that long hours of television are experienced
just after school when they first get home. Then ``prime time,'' we
would have to define ``prime time'' as somewhere between 8 o'clock and
midnight.
It also includes maybe the Internet. You could interpret this to say
the Internet, because it says in this section the term:

``Distribute'' means to send, transmit, retransmit,
telecast, broadcast, or cablecast, including by wire,
microwave or satellite.

You can also interpret that as the Internet.
We have never to this point put restrictions on the Internet. There
may be a day coming when, if the ISPs and the programmers don't show
some kind of responsibility, Government will.
It is almost unenforceable. In fact, it is unenforceable. I have
never seen a section like this that says if any part of this amendment
is found unconstitutional, then the remainder stays in. I think again
that is pretty much full employment for our legal profession.
The amendment runs counter to the meaning that we had when we all sat
down and worked out the V-chip. There were some of us who said the V-
chip will probably not work unless we have responsible parents who are
in charge of the television, basically. We were told at that time that
the V-chip people were ready to go for it.
Do you know that the first television to have a V-chip in it--this
was an agreement 2 years ago, back in July of 1997. Guess what. We have
yet to see the first television set to have a V-chip in it--2 years
later. That television won't be on the market until July of this year.
Let's give it a chance to work, as far as the V-chip is concerned.
I want to send a strong message to those who will provide
entertainment. You should get the message right away. There are people
looking, and there are people willing to take some steps, if they show
no responsibility at all in programming to our young people.
I thank the Chair. I thank the floor leader for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Montana
is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Communications. He questions
now: Is the amendment too broad? It sounds to him like a lawyer's
amendment. But the distinguished Senator did vote for something
identical in 1995 and in 1997, because he voted for exactly that when
we reported out the ``lawyer's amendment,'' or however he wants to
describe it right now. I appreciated his vote at that time. I am sorry
I didn't get to talk to him this morning when he came in, because I
think I could have gotten him back around to where he was. So much for
that.

My distinguished colleague from California talks about ``Schindler's
List.'' Heavens above. We said, ``Excessive, gratuitous violence.'' You
have ``Schindler's List.'' You have ``Civil War.'' You have ``Saving
Private Ryan.'' It just couldn't apply under this amendment. So let's
not raise questions like that.
With respect to pointing the finger at one industry, no. We pointed
the finger yesterday--almost a majority, but half the Senate, almost--
to the gun industry. We are trying at every angle we possibly can to do
something rather than to just talk about it, because that is what we
have been doing with respect to television violence. Now they come, of
course, with the wonderful putoff, that ``shall the Government
decide,'' and ``let the parents,'' ``power to the parents,'' and
everything else like that. Heavens above.
I haven't seen an amendment yet to repeal the FCC authority over
indecency. In fact, the decision--going up before the courts, finding
it to be constitutional--by Judge Edwards, who said violence would be
even again more appropriately controlled, but he ruled again on the
authority of the Government, the heavy hand of Government, rather than
the parent, namely the FCC, to come down and control indecency during
the family hour that we have today for indecency.
What this boils down to is to merely extend the family hour for
indecency, to violence, to television violence. We brought the Attorney
General of the United States, the Justice Department, and she attested
to the fact of its constitutionality as well as the outstanding force
of constitutional law by professors from the various campuses.
Mr. President, we have had that study. It came out again by the
voluntary effort of the industry itself back in 1992. We put that one
in the Record. Then 6 years later, what does Hollywood say?
I repeat the various letters that we have here, Mr. President. We had
the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists finding this,
the Producers Guild of America finding this, the Writers Guild of
America finding this, the Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors,
and the Directors Guild of America--all finding this. When I say
``finding this,'' I mean that much of TV violence is still glamorized.
It is trivialized. So we know what the industry does with a study and
an investigation in the Brownback amendment.
Mr. President, if we value family values, listen to this one.
Out in Ohio, a 5-year-old child started a fire that killed his
younger sister. The mother attributed the fact that he was fascinated
with fire to the MTV show Beavis & Butt-Head, in which they often set
things on fire. The show featured two teenagers on rock video burning
and destroying things. The boy watched one show that had the cartoon
character saying ``fire is fun.'' From that point on, the boy has been
playing with fire, the mother said. It goes on to say the mother was
concerned enough that she took the boy's bedroom door off the hinges so
she could watch him more closely, the fire chief said.
Let's give the mothers of America a break. Yes, we can put in the V-
chip; yes, we can do all the little gimmicks. But we know one thing is
working: They don't shoot 'em up in London schools. They don't shoot
'em up in European schools. They don't shoot 'em up in Australian
schools. They have a family hour with respect to television violence.
It is working.
In this country, why doesn't the family values crowd have the family
hour with respect to TV violence?
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate. It reminds
me of the three stages of denial: The fellow says I wasn't there when
it happened; if I was there, I didn't do it; if I did it, I didn't mean
it.
I have listened to the denial on this issue. We finally come to the
point after three decades of debate, especially in the last 6 or 8
years, where the denial is to say we can't take a baby step forward on
this important issue because somebody has reached an agreement
somewhere with someone else.
I didn't reach an agreement with anybody. We have a V-chip. I
introduced the first V-chip bill in the Senate January 31, 1994. We
have a V-chip in law. But don't anybody stand up here and say that
because we have a V-chip in law there was some deal someplace with
somebody that prevents Members from doing what we ought to do now.
Don't anybody say that, because I was not part of a deal. The Senator
from South Carolina was not part of a deal, and I daresay that 90 other
Senators in this Chamber were part of no deal with anybody about these
issues.
This is common sense. This makes sense.

[[Page S5214]]

It seems to me that we ought not have anybody ever come to the floor
of the Senate again to talk about this issue if Members are not willing
to take this baby step in the right direction.
I am pleased to join the Senator from South Carolina in offering this
amendment today to say we have had a lot of discussion, hundreds of
studies, a lot of debate. Now we come to the time where we choose.
Don't make excuses. Don't talk about some deal that doesn't exist for
most Senators. Vote for this legislation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 328. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich

NAYS--39

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Bryan
Byrd
Conrad
Coverdell
DeWine
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sessions
Snowe
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Inouye

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
disposition of amendment No. 335, Senator Feingold be recognized for up
to 8 minutes to make a statement on debate, the Senator from Minnesota
be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then Senator Ashcroft be
recognized to offer an amendment regarding guns, and that there be 45
minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote on or in relation
to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to
that vote.
I further ask consent that following the debate, the amendment be
laid aside and Senator Feinstein be recognized to offer an amendment
regarding gun control, with the debate limited to 90 minutes and under
the same parameters outlined above.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object----
Mr. HATCH. Let me finish. Following that debate, the Senate proceed
to vote in the order in which the amendments were offered, with 5
minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I
assume then that 5 minutes would be divided in the usual fashion.
Mr. HATCH. Therefore, for the information of all Senators--do I have
the unanimous consent?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Therefore, for the information of all Senators, the next
votes will occur at approximately 3:30 p.m. and approximately 4 p.m.
today.
Mr. LEAHY. Unless time is yielded back.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, following
the disposition of those amendments, is it then your intention to move
to a Hatch-Craig amendment?
Mr. HATCH. Yes; following that, we intend to move to the Hatch-Craig
amendment on firearms.
Mr. LEAHY. That is not part of the unanimous consent request.
Mr. HATCH. That is not part of the unanimous consent request.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we move to the Hatch-Craig
amendment immediately following the disposition of those amendments.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at this time I object.
Mr. McCAIN. Then I object to the unanimous consent request.
Mr. LEAHY. We already have that.
Mr. HATCH. Let me ask the Senator----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement has been
agreed to, and the Senator from Wisconsin has 8 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator from Arizona----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 8 minutes.
(The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S.
1035 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

____________________