[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1465-S1469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 340. A bill to recruit and retain more qualified individuals to 
teach in Tribal Colleges or Universities; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this week I had the honor and 
pleasure of meeting with the presidents, faculty and student leaders 
from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs 
of Native Americans and the crucial role tribal colleges play in 
strengthening tribal communities. It was a fascinating conversation.
  We sat around a table in my office in the United States Capitol 
building talking about the hopes and aspirations of the next generation 
of Native American leaders. Every one of those young people had good 
ideas and the poise and self-confidence to express them.
  As the participants spoke of the importance and the power of 
education as the key to unlock the promise of the future, the story I 
heard was not one of bricks and mortar, but rather one of enduring 
spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life. 
Listening to the discussion and observing the people in the room, I had 
no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands.
  Tribal colleges and universities play a critical role in educating 
Native Americans across the country, and I have come to believe they 
may well be the best kept secret in higher education. For more than 30 
years, these institutions have been instrumental in providing a quality 
education for Native American students, many of whom our mainstream 
educational system previously had failed.
  Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 
100 Native American students attended college. Of those few who did, 
only one or two would graduate with a degree.
  Then tribal colleges emerged, offering curricula that is culturally 
relevant and focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, 
language and economic needs. With this focus and a clear mission, these 
institutions have had a high success rate in educating Native American 
and Alaska Native people, and tribal college enrollment has increased 
62 percent over the last six years.
  The track record of tribal colleges is impressive. Recent studies 
show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates 
are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduation. 
Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled 
tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many 
reservations overall.
  While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in 
helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, additional 
challenges remain before the future of these institutions is assured. 
These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational 
opportunities for their students, and federal spending trends for these 
schools have been woefully inadequate. It is imperative that the 
bipartisan effort to provide additional core and facilities funding to 
tribal colleges continue.
  In addition to resource constraints, tribal college administrators 
and faculty have expressed to me a particular frustration over the 
difficulty they experience in attracting qualified teachers to Indian 
Country. Geographic isolation and low salaries have made recruitment 
and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools, and 
this problem has been exacerbated by rising enrollment.
  As a matter of public policy, it simply makes sense for Congress to 
help tribal college administrators overcome these serious barriers to 
the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty. Today, with the 
support of the South Dakota delegation of Tribal Colleges, the American 
Indian Higher Education Consortium, and the National Indian Education 
Association, and the co-sponsorship of my colleagues Senators Bingaman, 
Conrad, Baucus, Akaka, Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, and Johonson, I am 
pleased to introduce the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness 
Act, which will provide forgiveness on federal student

[[Page S1466]]

loans to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of 
the 32 tribal colleges nationwide. Under this proposal, individuals who 
have Perkins, Direct or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to 
$15,000 in loan forgiveness, which will help tribal colleges attract 
qualified teachers and encourage Native American students to fulfill 
their promise.
  The Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act will benefit 
individual students and their communities. By expanding opportunities 
for Native American students to develop valuable skills, it will not 
only allow individuals to maximize their human potential, but also spur 
economic growth and help facilitate self-sufficiency in communities 
that desperately need it.
  I believe our responsibility as legislators was perhaps best summed 
up by one of my state's historic leaders, Sitting Bull, who said: ``Let 
us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our 
children.'' This message still resonates loudly and applies today, and 
is reflected in the life's work of Sitting Bulls' great-great-great 
grandson, Ron McNeil, the president of Sitting Bull College, with whom 
I met on this very subject earlier in the week.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with Ron McNeil and his 
fellow educators across the country to familiarize the public with the 
accomplishments and the promise of the tribal college movement. And I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to pass the 
Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act as quickly as 
possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 340

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

     SECTION 1. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                   TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal 
     College or University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act''.
       (b) Perkins Loans.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) as a full-time teacher at a tribal College or 
     University as defined in section 316(b).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``or (I)'' and 
     inserting ``(I), or (J)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective for service performed during academic year 
     1998-1999 and succeeding academic years, notwithstanding any 
     contrary provision of the promissory note under which a loan 
     under part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.) was made.
       (c) FFEL and Direct Loans.--Part G of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 493C. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   WHO TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     program, through the holder of a loan, of assuming or 
     canceling the obligation to repay a qualified loan amount, in 
     accordance with subsection (b), for any new borrower on or 
     after the date of enactment of the Tribal College or 
     University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act, who--
       ``(1) has been employed as a full-time teacher at a Tribal 
     College or University as defined in section 316(b); and
       ``(2) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower 
     seeks repayment or cancellation.
       ``(b) Qualified Loan Amounts.--
       ``(1) Percentages.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall assume or cancel the obligation to repay under this 
     section--
       ``(A) 15 percent of the amount of all loans made, insured, 
     or guaranteed after the date of enactment of the Tribal 
     College or University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act to a 
     student under part B or D, for the first or second year of 
     employment described in subsection (a)(1);
       ``(B) 20 percent of such total amount, for the third or 
     fourth year of such employment; and
       ``(C) 30 percent of such total amount, for the fifth year 
     of such employment.
       ``(2) Maximum.--The Secretary shall not repay or cancel 
     under this section more than $15,000 in the aggregate of 
     loans made, insured, or guaranteed under parts B and D for 
     any student.
       ``(3) Treatment of consolidation loans.--A loan amount for 
     a loan made under section 428C may be a qualified loan amount 
     for the purposes of this subsection only to the extent that 
     such loan amount was used to repay a loan made, insured, or 
     guaranteed under part B or D for a borrower who meets the 
     requirements of subsection (a), as determined in accordance 
     with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
     such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan.
       ``(e) Prevention of Double Benefits.--No borrower may, for 
     the same service, receive a benefit under both this section 
     and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.).
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `year', when applied to employment as a teacher, means an 
     academic year as defined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 2. AMOUNTS FORGIVEN NOT TREATED AS GROSS INCOME.

       The amount of any loan that is assumed or canceled under an 
     amendment made by this Act shall not, consistent with section 
     108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be treated as 
     gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 341. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
that violent video programming is limited to broadcast after the hours 
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion 
of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its 
violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means 
specifically on the basis of that content; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, Senator 
Hutchison of Texas, Senator Inouye, Senator Kohl, Senator Dorgan, and 
myself, I send to the desk a bill, the Children's Protection From 
Violent Programming Act.
  Mr. President, it has been a 50-year learning process. I am reminded 
of Peter, Paul, and Mary, singing that song about, ``Where have all the 
flowers gone? When will they ever learn?'' The truth of the matter is 
that we have learned. We have had hearings starting back in the early 
1950s with Senator Kefauver. We have had Surgeon General reports, 
American Medical Association reports, American Psychological 
Association reports, National Cable Television Association reports, 
Kaiser Family Foundation reports--reports, reports, reports, again, 
again, and again; and only this yet to be introduced ``Youth Violence: 
A Report of the Surgeon General,'' which I quote, among other findings, 
from page 93:

       Research to date justifies sustained efforts to curb the 
     adverse effects of media violence on youth.

  We have had Attorney General Janet Reno, along with other legal 
scholars, attest to the constitutionality of the safe harbor approach. 
The truth of the matter is that everybody is talking about 
bipartisanship. We have had it with respect to TV violence and its 
effect on children. In the last three Congresses, safe harbor has been 
reported out of committee almost unanimously, with only one dissenting 
vote in each Congress, 16-1, 19-1, 17-1, after a series of hearings in 
the Commerce Committee. Then it gets to the full Senate's calendar and 
it stops.
  On Thursday, January 25, a thirteen year old boy was sentenced to 
life in prison for the killing of a six year old family friend. Why did 
he do it? To imitate pro wrestling he had watched on television. In 
this instance, the defendant punched, kicked, and threw a 48 pound 
little girl against a metal staircase after asking her ``Do you want to 
play wrestling?'' His defense attorney stated: ``He wanted to emulate 
them. . . . Like Batman and Superman, they were his heroes.'' He added, 
that the defendant ``didn't understand that he could hurt the 48-pound 
girl if he punched her and threw her because he had seen pro wrestlers 
do that hundreds of times without injuring each other.'' Apparently, 
the death was one of at least four cases in 1999 in which pro wrestling 
inspired the killing of one child by another.
  The day after this sentencing, another thirteen year old boy suffered 
second and third degree burns when he tried to imitate an MTV 
personality who set himself on fire as part of the

[[Page S1467]]

show ``Jackass,'' which airs on that music network. The injured teen, 
who was from Torrington, CT, allowed his friend to douse his pants and 
shoes with gasoline and then light them on fire mistakenly assuming 
that he would not be injured. His burns, and required hospitalization 
tell another tale.
  Mr. President, enough is enough. And yet, we can never bring 
ourselves to act. Remember, it was over three years ago, in Paducah, 
Kentucky, when a fourteen year old savagely murdered three teenage 
girls and shot five others who had just completed their morning prayer 
meeting at school. Prosecutors alleged the defendant plotted his 
killings after watching ``The Basketball Diaries,'' a movie in which a 
tormented student dreams of brutally slaying his tormentors in the 
classroom. In the scene in which the killings take place, popular rock 
music resonates in the background and students high-five each other and 
laugh while their friend guns down multiple students and the classroom 
teacher.
  And we all are familiar with the incident in which a young boy burned 
down his home, thereby killing his sister, while imitating the 
ritualistic pyromaniac practices that were glorified on the popular 
cartoon show ``Beavis and Butthead.'' A few years before that, in 1991, 
a thirteen year old boy in Jerusalem accidentally killed himself when 
he imitated a TV hanging he had witnessed on one of his favorite 
action-adventure programs. His friends discovered him dead, hanging 
from the stairway bannister in his home.
  How much copycat violence will it take? How many violent acts have to 
be committed, how much vandalism, destruction, injury, and death has to 
occur, before we act here in Congress? As we have seen in Littleton, 
Colorado, and in Paducah, Kentucky, violence in our culture is 
begetting violence by our youths. Violence is everywhere, it is readily 
accessible, and it is a source of corporate profits. As a Washington 
Post article entitled ``When Death Imitates Art'' stated two years 
ago--``For young people, the culture at large is bathed in blood and 
violence . . . where the more extreme the message, the more over the 
top gruesomeness, the better.'' This assessment is based on established 
evidence and facts. We know from the Congressional Research Service 
that before completing elementary school, the average child will 
witness 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television 
alone. By the time he or she graduates from high school, the exposure 
will rise to 40,000 televised murders. Often accompanied by popular 
music, portrayed in a glorified light, and delivered without reference 
to the negative consequences of such dire actions, television violence 
has a direct, adverse impact on our children.

  The legislation I offer today provides an opportunity for us to act 
responsibly to lessen that impact, by limiting our children's exposure 
to the poisonous effects of televised, glorified, violence. We need to 
take advantage of that opportunity. The purveyors of violence in 
corporate America will no doubt criticize this effort and seek the 
mantle of the First Amendment while espousing the virtue of self-
regulation. What they won't say is that U.S. law already restricts the 
broadcasting of indecent programming on television, a restriction the 
federal courts have upheld as consistent with the First Amendment. A 
similar approach for violence is also likely to be upheld, as has been 
demonstrated in previous Congresses through the hearing testimony of 
the U.S. Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, and numerous constitutional scholars. As for self-
regulation, it has been proven unequivocally that such an approach will 
never work so long as it is pitted against the allure of the almighty 
dollar.
  Mr. President, this is an issue about accountability and 
responsibility. Those responsible for supplying and distributing video 
programming have been entrusted with public resources--through grants 
of government spectrum and public rights of way--that allow them to 
deliver their programming to America's children. Notwithstanding the 
responsibility that accompanies the grant of this public trust, we know 
from the studies that there is more violence on television during prime 
time, during ``sweeps weeks'' and even on weekend afternoons. Why? 
Because violence sells and money talks. And no amount of self- 
regulation, and no number of antitrust exemptions is going to change 
that profit incentive.
  Moreover, we know that no issue is more developed, more researched, 
and more debated than this one. Allow me to lay out the history.
  We were in the last days of the Truman Administration when a House 
Subcommittee first looked at the issue of violence on radio and 
television.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Estes Kefauver began to 
examine media and youth violence in hearings in 1954 and the Senate 
Commerce Committee began hearings in 1960. In the Senate Commerce 
Committee alone we have held twenty two hearings on the issue of media 
violence.
  In 1972, the Surgeon General's report concluded that there is a 
causal link between viewing violence as a child and subsequent violent 
or aggressive behavior.
  In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health, after ten years of 
research, found that ``the consensus among most of the research 
community is that violence on television does lead to aggressive 
behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs.''
  Congress finally responded to this overwhelming evidence in 1990, 
when we granted the industry an antitrust exemption to meet and develop 
ways to reduce violence on television. In response to that legislation, 
the TV networks issued standards for the depiction of violence on 
broadcast television. Let me quote from those standards:

       All depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary 
     to the development of character, or to the advancement of 
     theme or plot. Gratuitous or excessive depictions of 
     violence, (or redundant violence shown solely for its own 
     sake), are not acceptable. Programs should not depict 
     violence as glamorous, nor as an acceptable solution to human 
     conflict. . . . Realistic depictions of violence should also 
     portray, in human terms, the consequences of that violence to 
     its victims and its perpetrators.

  The goals articulated by these network standards are good ones--they 
are the same goals I hope to achieve with this legislation. 
Unfortunately, the standards developed pursuant to the 1990 antitrust 
exemption were never adhered to by the networks. Instead, the 
television industry ignored and violated those standards, thereby 
rendering the antitrust exemption meaningless. We know this because an 
industry commissioned study by the National Cable Television 
Association tells us as much. That NCTA study, issued in 1998, reported 
that:

       The way that most TV violence is portrayed continues to 
     pose risks to viewers . . . Much of TV violence is still 
     glamorized. . . . Most violence on television continues to be 
     sanitized. Television often ignores or underestimates what 
     happens to the victims of violence . . . Much of the serious 
     physical aggression on television is still trivialized.

  The NCTA report could not put it more plainly. The networks failed to 
heed their own standards. I hope we have learned our lesson: no 
antitrust exemption is going to protect children from the harms 
associated with television violence.
  With respect to the causal impact of exposure to televised violence, 
the NCTA report was equally illuminating. It stated:

       Prior to this study, it had already been well established 
     that television influences many kinds of attitudes and 
     behaviors by modeling them as appropriate and/or desirable. A 
     highly successful multi-billion dollar advertising industry 
     is built on that premise. More specifically, violence on 
     television has been shown in hundreds of studies to have an 
     influence on aggressive behavior. Over the past 20 years, 
     numerous respected academic and public health organizations 
     and agencies--including the American Psychological 
     Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S. 
     Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental 
     Health--have reviewed the existing body of evidence in this 
     area and have unanimously affirmed the validity of that 
     conclusion.

  Finally, several weeks ago, the Surgeon General released a 
preliminary report that concludes-- yet again--that there exists a 
scientific link between violent television programming and increased 
aggression in children. The report states: ``A diverse body of research 
provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can 
increase children's aggressive behavior in the short term.'' The report 
notes further that a smaller body of reports demonstrates that ``long-
term effects exist, and there are strong theoretical reasons that this 
is the case.'' Finally, the report concludes that ``Research to date 
justifies sustained efforts to curb

[[Page S1468]]

the adverse effects of media violence on youths.''

  So there you have it. We have come full circle with two significant 
surgeon general reports almost thirty years apart and scores of studies 
in between. In the interim, Congress and the Federal Communications 
Commission have tried to address this problem with a mix of regulation 
and self regulation. These attempts have been unsuccessful. In the 
1970s, FCC Chairman Dick Wiley attempted to cajole industry to adopt a 
family hour, but that ultimately was abandoned. Then, in addition to 
the failed 1990 antitrust exemption, we acted in 1996, as part of the 
Telecommunications Act, to require televisions to be equipped with a V-
Chip. We know today, however, almost five years since that provision 
was passed, that the V-chip is not working. For example, an April 2000 
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrates that only 9 percent 
of parents of children aged 2-17 own a television with a V-Chip. 
Moreover, only one-third of these parents (3 percent of all parents) 
have programmed the chip to block unsuitable programming. Finally, the 
survey indicated that 39 percent of parents of children aged 2-17 had 
never heard of the V-Chip.
  As if that was not bad enough, we know further that the industry 
developed ratings system designed to work in conjunction with the V-
chip is failing as well. To be specific, although almost all broadcast 
and cable channels now encode their programs with ratings, many violent 
programs are in fact not specifically rated ``V'' for violence--thereby 
rendering the system ineffective. The most recent survey by the Kaiser 
Family Foundation on this subject found that 79 percent of shows with 
violence did not receive the ``V'' rating. If the V-Chip and the 
ratings system do not provide enough protection, it is our 
responsibility to fill in the gap.
  Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee held two high profile 
hearings to examine an issue related to televised violence--that of 
marketing violence to children. At those hearings we reviewed industry 
practices as outlined in a Federal Trade Commission report that found 
that the entertainment industry as a whole routinely marketed violent 
fare to children that was in fact rated as inappropriate for those same 
children. I raise this subject because some members of industry 
responded to the FTC report and our hearings by choosing to limit the 
advertising of violent material on television to certain hours of the 
day. In other words, they too believe that it is better to shield 
children from exposure to violent images when they are likely to 
comprise a substantial portion of the audience. While I applaud those 
voluntary actions, they do not go far enough, and as a result, we in 
Congress have to do more. If it is good for children to limit violent 
advertisements, it follows that it should be good for children to limit 
violent programming.
  A recent study by Stanford University supports this conclusion. 
Released last month, the study determined that aggression by children 
can be reduced by limiting their exposure to media violence--exactly 
the approach advocated in our Safeharbor legislation.
  Mr. President, that is why I am introducing my legislation today. My 
bill takes a two track approach to television violence. First, it would 
require the FCC to study whether the V-Chip and the content-based 
ratings system can capably meet the compelling government interest in 
protecting children from the harms associated with their exposure to 
violence on television. The FCC is to complete this determination 
within 12 months of enactment and is directed to continue an ongoing 
annual assessment of this issue. If the FCC at any time determines that 
the V-Chip and the ratings do not constitute an effective means of 
satisfying the government's compelling interest in protecting children, 
then it must institute a Safeharbor to shield children from violent 
programs when they are likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
audience. While this legislation would apply to broadcast television 
and basic satellite and cable programming, it would exempt pay-per-view 
and premium cable and satellite programming from the Safeharbor.
  Prior to the imposition of any safeharbor, the legislation directs 
the FCC to develop rules penalizing broadcasters and cable and 
satellite programmers for distributing violent programming on 
television that is not blockable by the V-Chip. These penalties will be 
triggered if violent shows are not in fact rated ``V'' for violence as 
required by the ratings system. This provision will increase the 
incentive for programmers to rate their shows accurately, and responds 
to evidence that most violent programming is in fact not specifically 
rated for violence, and therefore is not blockable by the V-Chip.
  This legislation was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce 
Committee last year by a 17-1 vote. I look forward to moving the bill 
out of Committee again this year, and I hope that we can secure 
enactment of this measure for the first time in this Congress.
  Mr. President, the evidence is in, we know the results, and we have a 
solution. Its time to enact a safeharbor for television violence.
  Mr. President, I refer to page 23 of volume 3 of ``A History of 
Broadcasting in the United States.'' It alludes to the year 1949 and 
the production of the program ``Man Against Crime,'' starring Ralph 
Bellamy. I begin right on page 23:
  ``Man Against Crime was sponsored by Camel Cigarettes. This affected 
both writing and direction. Mimeographed instructions told writers, 
``Do not have the heavy or any disreputable person smoking a cigarette. 
Do not associate the smoking of cigarettes with undesirable scenes or 
situations plot wise.''

       Cigarettes had to be smoked gracefully, never puffed 
     nervously. A cigarette was never given to a character to calm 
     his nerves, since this might suggest a narcotic effect. 
     Writers received numerous plot instructions.

  Listen carefully because this is the instruction that the writers 
were given 50 years ago:

       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 from the History of Broadcasting.
  The industry knows that violence is a moneymaker. Ten years ago, the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois said: No, no, wait a minute, don't 
rush into this thing; freedom of speech, freedom of speech. We don't 
want to damage the originality of the producers. So we gave an 
antitrust exemption so they could work together because Senator Simon 
said they could not work together and regulate because of antitrust 
provisions in the Federal statute. We gave them that protection.
  Then came a very interesting study from cable television. Every time 
I speak in the Chamber, they give me another study. That is why I wish 
I could sing: When will they ever learn?
  This study, done a few years ago, was financed by the National Cable 
Television Association, but it was done by the University of California 
at Santa Barbara, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the 
University of Texas at Austin and the University of Wisconsin at 
Madison. It included, amongst other council members, the American 
Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Producers Guild of 
America, the Writers Guild of America West, the Caucus for Producers, 
Writers and Directors, the American Bar Association, and the Directors 
Guild of America. Point: The very people who are doing the producing 
found that violence begets children's violence.
  Three weeks ago, a 13-year-old was sentenced to life in prison for 
bludgeoning to death a 48-pound 8 year old. He had seen this on a cable 
wrestling show. These wrestlers jumped on each other, they beat each 
others' heads against a post, and then flung opponents out of the ring. 
That was the undisputed record: That the 13-year-old saw wrestling 
matches where everybody got up and walked away unharmed and came back 
the next week.
  Just last month, someone else emulated a stunt on MTV showing how 
people could be set on fire and then walk away unharmed. The individual 
saw the MTV program, tried it, and got first- and second-degree burns 
all over his body.
  I will never forget years ago on the ``Johnny Carson Show,'' they had 
a fellow with a tie around his neck, and he dropped through a trap door 
and hung and, again, just walked away. The next day a couple found 
their young teenager hanging from the bedroom fan. He

[[Page S1469]]

had tied himself up, got on the edge of the bed, and jumped off and 
hanged himself.
  We know monkey see-monkey do, and it begets violence. This country, 
the industrial country of the United States, has more violence than all 
other countries combined.
  What have the other countries done? For years on end they have had a 
safe harbor in Europe, in Australia, and in New Zealand, and other 
places. They have a time set aside when children dominate the audience 
and thou shalt not have violent shows during that time. It works. Their 
children do not shoot up classrooms, they do not emulate violence, or 
kill little girls. That does not go on in Europe, but it continues to 
increase in our country, according to the Surgeon General's report just 
about to be released. We see it on the increase.
  The Kaiser Family Foundation counters with: Oh, well, you have to get 
the V-chip. Under legal decisions, you have to use the least intrusive 
method of regulating so-called free speech. So we put the V-chip into 
the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That was supposed to allow parents to 
take charge. We constantly hear that when we know it is not the case.
  Sixty-two percent of young single women are in the workforce with 
latchkey children at home. We have tried that V-chip. One, 40 percent 
of those interviewed under the Kaiser Family Foundation have never even 
heard of the V-chip--what are you talking about? Two, less than 10 
percent have ever had the V-chip, and, three, less than 3 percent have 
ever used it.
  It is impractical. You have to run around to the three or four TVs in 
the house and say: I have the program, and before I go to work this 
morning, I am going to put in the chip. Come on, that is unreal, but 
that is the political solution which has not worked.
  I do not want to be put aside. I have been put aside. I offered an 
amendment a couple of years ago to the juvenile justice bill. Some 
colleagues said: Fritz, I would vote for your amendment, but I don't 
want any amendments on the juvenile justice bill, or we have not tried 
the V-chip. They gave any putoff they could think of.
  We found out that we ought to just include it in a statute. In this 
bill, we direct the Federal Communications Commission to have hearings 
on this matter and determine whether or not the V-chip is effective 
and, if it is not, to promulgate a safe harbor.
  Constitutionally, the Federal Communications Commission has been 
given that authority on indecency. Why not on violence? These programs 
have not been properly rated. We prescribe in this measure that the 
industry start rating violence--V for violence--on these shows. If they 
do not, there is going to be a penalty.
  A Stanford University study has just been issued whereby they have 
tested the diminution of violence on television and there has been a 
diminution then in children's violence in that particular community. We 
will bring that to the floor. We are ready to debate this legislation. 
This is a bipartisan bill. We have had Republican and Democrats in the 
last three Congresses join in, but we have never had a fair hearing on 
the floor.
  We have done this in a deliberate, measured fashion so that we can 
get it considered in this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hollings' 
Children's Protection from Violent Television Programming Act. I thank 
Senator Hollings for his leadership and hard work on this important 
issue shielding our children from excessive violence in the media.
  This proposal is vital to ensure that the promise of the V-chip is 
fulfilled, that our public airwaves cannot be used and abused to the 
detriment of our families and our children. But today, in spite of the 
V-chip, our children are still being exposed to ultra-violent 
programming on television, even during the early prime time period 
known as ``family hour.''
  Since my first term in office, I have fought to limit the amount of 
violence that our children are exposed to on television, in video 
games, in the movies and in music. Although I have focused on the video 
game industry encouraging the manufacturers to create and implement a 
ratings system I was also a vocal supporter of the V-chip provision 
included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  The V-chip legislation required the installation of blocking 
technology in most televisions. That technology is used in conjunction 
with a television ratings system so that parents can restrict their 
children's access to violent programming at all times. We know that 
parents can't realistically look over their children's shoulders every 
minute they're in front of the television. But the V-Chip allows them 
to configure their television to do essentially that.
  Since January 2000, V-chip technology has been installed in every 
television measuring over 13''. More than 25 million televisions have a 
V-chip now. However, a recent study by the Annenberg Public Policy 
Center revealed that nine in ten parents do not know about the 
television ratings system, and of parents who own and know about their 
V-chip, only half actually use the blocking technology.
  Clearly, having a V-chip in a television is just not good enough. It 
has to be combined with a good, easily understood ratings system and a 
real commitment by manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters to educate 
parents. Without these elements, having a V-chip in your television is 
about as effective at protecting your child as requiring car seats but 
letting toddlers sit in the front seat without a seatbelt.
  Mr. President, my first preference is to have V-chip technology that 
works and that parents trust. But if it seems otherwise, we will not 
stand idly by. This legislation presents a step-by-step approach: it 
asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to gauge the success 
and public awareness of the V-chip. And if success is limited and 
public awareness is low, this measure vests the Commission with the 
power to remedy it.
  So let's pass this legislation, and let's find out if the V-chip is 
really helping parents shield their children from violence on 
television. And if not, let's give the FCC the power to do something 
about it. Our families and especially our children deserve nothing 
less.
                                 ______