[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.
______