[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 54 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3970-S3971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE ROLE OF TELEVISION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss an 
issue that I have addressed several times before on this floor--that 
is, the role of television in the lives of the American people. Today's 
television would have you believe that the television program ``How to 
Marry a Millionaire'' is a guide on how to find the perfect mate; that 
``Temptation Island'' is a guide to stable relationships; that Al Bundy 
is a paragon of parental nurturing, while his wife, Peg Bundy is 
reflective of virtuous American womanhood; that ``Who Wants To Be a 
Millionaire?'' is educational television.
  I am ashamed and embarrassed that according to a survey by the 
Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, 70 
percent of the parents surveyed regard ``Who Wants To Be a 
Millionaire?'' as educational television.
  I regret to say that the sorry state of television is becoming the 
sorry state of America: 59 percent of Americans can name the three 
Stooges, but only 17 percent of the American people can name three 
Supreme Court Justices; only about 50 percent of the American people 
could identify the Vice President of the United States, but 95 percent 
could identify Homer, Bart, and Marge Simpson.
  Three years ago, I came to this floor to express my shock and utter 
amazement at the details of a story in Time magazine entitled, 
``Everything Your Children Already Know About Sex.'' The story told how 
our children are learning their sexual values from television programs 
like ``Dawson's Creek,'' which boasted of a character who lost her 
virginity at the age of 12 while drunk. There was ``Buffy the Vampire 
Slayer'' in which a male vampire turned bad after having sex with 17-
year-old Buffy.
  ``Why are we letting our kids watch this morally degrading, 
thoroughly demeaning, junk on the airwaves?'' I asked.
  But from that low point, television has only continued to degenerate. 
It seems that many television programs are busily intent on answering 
the question, ``how low can you go?'' with the fare that they put 
before us.
  The land, the society, the country that once produced the works of 
James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, now 
gives us the works of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer. No wonder the 
late Steve Allen, a pioneer in the television industry, complained that 
television had become a ``moral sewer.''
  When I think of television today, I seriously wonder whether Charles 
Darwin's theory of evolution is being stood on its head by popular 
culture. Evolution implies progress. Going from the musical 
accomplishments of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart to the groans and moans 
of HBO's ``Sex in the City'' is anything but progress.
  By the age of 18, the average American child will have viewed about 
200,000 acts of violence on television. Before that child leaves 
elementary school, that child will have watched, on the average, about 
20,000 murders and more than 80,000 other assaults. This means that 
during their most formative years, our children will witness 
approximately 100,000 acts of violence.
  But the problem with television is more than the content of the 
programs alone. It is the nature of the beast--or should I say, the 
nature of the boob tube. There are 102 million TV homes in the USA; 42 
percent of them have three or more sets. The average American spends 
four hours of each day--that amounts to two full months of each year--
staring at the boob tube. Forty percent of the American people stare at 
the boob tube even while eating.

  The negative impact of too much television is becoming more and more 
apparent as more and more studies have demonstrated: the link between 
television violence and real violence; the link between television and 
increasing obesity among young people; the link between television and 
declining interest in the fine arts; the link between television 
viewing and low academic performance. To put it bluntly, Mr. President, 
television is helping to create a morally irresponsible, overweight, 
lazy, violent, and ill-informed society.
  Mr. President, this week, April 23-29, is national ``TV Turnoff 
Week.'' Turn it off! Let's have more turnoff weeks; make it 52 weeks of 
the year, national ``TV Turnoff Week.'' This is an effort sponsored by 
the TV-Turnoff Network, a grass-roots organization that has organized 
thousands of schools, clubs, community organizations, and religious 
groups to get the American people to turn off or limit their television 
viewing for one week to discover that there is actually life beyond the 
boob tube. The group has won the support and endorsements of dozens of 
powerful organizations, such as the American Medical Association. They 
have certainly won my support and my hearty endorsement. Hallelujah! 
Turn off that TV.
  The organization's motto is, ``Turn off TV. Turn on life.'' Their 
point is well taken. Life should be more rewarding and interesting than 
sitting in front of a box and becoming mesmerized with morally 
degrading, mind-numbing nonsense. That is what it is.
  Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, get 
some exercise! Get out-of-doors. Go for a walk, a hike, a bike ride, or 
swim. It will be far better for your health.
  Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, read 
a good book! Read Emerson's Essays, Carlyle's ``History of the French 
Revolution,'' read history, read the Bible, read Milton's ``Paradise 
Lost, Paradise Regained.'' Read ``Robinson Crusoe.'' Read something 
that is worth reading. I ask, which will make one a better person, 
spending hours watching ``Survivor,'' ``Big Brother,'' and ``The 
Weakest Link,'' or using the time to read a great literary work by 
Shakespeare, Dickens, or Goethe. Groucho Marx said that he found 
television to be very educational because, ``Every time somebody turns 
on a set, I go into the other room and read a book.'' I like that. I 
say, ``be like Groucho.'' Let's have more Groucho's. Simply turn off 
the television set and read a good book.
  Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, 
spend some time with the family. Family members can use the opportunity 
to take a trip together to the local museum or art gallery, or simply 
talk to each other during dinner. Make your family the center of home 
life, not the television set. Studies by professor Barbara Brock at 
Eastern Washington University found that in TV-free families, parents 
have about an hour of meaningful conversation with their children every 
day, compared with the national average of 38 minutes a week. Here 
would be an opportunity for parents to emphasize their values--not 
Hollywood's--to their most precious asset--their children.
  I don't want to leave the impression that all television is bad. I 
have seen some very educational, very informative, very uplifting, very 
good pictures, shows, and plays on television. There is much 
programming that is truly educational. I have been to one movie since I 
have been in Washington. I have been in Washington now 49 years. I have 
been to one movie. I left that movie. I didn't stay and watch it 
through. I became bored and I walked out. Yul Brynner was, I think, the 
main player in that movie. I walked out. But just within the last few 
weeks, I watched a picture in which Yul Brynner played. I believe it 
was--I am trying to remember now. I have watched some good pictures 
recently. I watched ``The Ten Commandments,'' which was a good picture. 
That may have been it. Yul Brynner plays in it and I liked him in it. 
He played well. So I don't want to leave the impression that all 
television is bad. I think that C-Span, PBS, and the History Channel

[[Page S3971]]

provide worthwhile viewing to the audience. I also believe that 
programming like Ken Burns's series on the Civil War is quality 
programming that expands our knowledge and deepens understanding.

  But I do want to emphatically stress that there is much more to life 
than the boring, degrading, demeaning fare on the boob tube. I urge the 
American people to use this week to break your addiction to television. 
Just say no! As the TV-Turnoff Network urges, ``turn off TV, turn on 
life.''
  In addition to becoming healthier, both mentally and physically, one 
might be able to name three Justices on the Supreme Court.
  One might even be able to name the Vice President of the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the TV-Turnoff Network and 
urge them to keep up the good work. And I urge my colleagues and the 
American people to participate in national ``TV Turnoff Week.''
  Mr. President, I have another statement I want to make. But I am very 
conscious of the fact that my favorite U.S. Senator on this side of the 
aisle has been on the floor waiting. I am very willing to set aside my 
speech and listen to my colleague before I proceed further.
  (Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia, who is typically courteous, as always. I am very grateful for 
his thoughtfulness. I welcome the opportunity to continue to listen to 
his very fine statements. There are many important things that are 
happening in the Nation's Capitol and around this country today, but I 
think if the American people will pause and listen to the good advice 
of my friend and colleague about the importance of reading as opposed 
to television, in his excellent presentation, I think this would be a 
wiser and more thoughtful country. I commend the Senator for his 
statement and the subject matter. I look forward to continue listening.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. But I want to give him 
a second chance. I want to give my friend a second chance. I want to 
warn him that this is poetry month. I am all ready to talk about 
poetry, and I am ready to at least render my memorization of at least 8 
or 10 or 12 poems. So I will give my colleague one more chance. If he 
would like to make his speech now before I start, I would be happy to 
yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may be even more reluctant to interfere. We 
have a good prospect of listening to him quote poetry. All of us are 
enormously impressed that when the Senator travels back to West 
Virginia, he takes time to learn and to memorize poems. As a result of 
that experience, and a very long and distinguished career in the 
Senate, he has an enormous reservoir of knowledge of poetry and an 
incredible encyclopedic memory for poetry that always seems to be right 
for every special occasion. I look forward to hearing some of those 
this afternoon.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. I really have 
enjoyed my long service with the distinguished senior Senator from 
Massachusetts. I have learned a great deal from him, and I prize that 
friendship.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, does the Senator intend to 
mention that wonderful poem about the ambulance in the valley? That was 
always one of my favorites. I don't know whether the Senator planned to 
include that.
  Mr. BYRD. I did not plan to include it, but I will be happy to try to 
do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. That is very thoughtful of him and 
very good of him. I appreciate his interest in that particular poem, 
among others. Let's do it this way. I will make my speech and do the 
poems that I have included, and then I will give the Senator a chance 
to make his speech, and if he is still interested in my giving that 
poem, I will be happy to, or I will be happy to wait until another day.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________