House of Representatives and Senate Proposed Legislation on the V-Chip

Mr. MARKEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Television Violence Reduction Through Parental Empowerment Act of 1993 which will give parents the power to block from their homes, and from their children's viewing, television programs which contain harmful depictions of violence. I am very pleased to be joined in the introduction of this most important piece of legislation by Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields, Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Slattery, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Synar, Mr. Shepherd, and Ms. Schenk.

Televised violence is ubiquitous and insidious. Even the most conscientious parents are often powerless to monitor their children's viewing all week long, leaving them susceptible to the excessive level of murder and mayhem that comes over the air and through the cable. Not only are young children exposed to graphic images of violence and death, but they see these images over and over and over again. By the time they finish elementary school, the average child has witnessed over 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000 murders according to the American Psychological Association.

And make no mistake about it, the violence children watch on television is anything but benign. The scientific evidence is in and is indisputable: Watching television violence as a child leads to increased aggression and violent behavior, and the effects last over a lifetime.

In fact, three Surgeons General, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Centers for Disease Control, American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have concurred for nearly 20 years as to the deleterious effects of television violence on children.

It is time for Congress to act. Parents are demanding action. They want the television industry to reduce the level of violence, on broadcast, cable, and satellite television. But this time they want more than promises. They want the power to protect their own children, in their own homes. And they want the power to do so even when they are not at home.

Parents want to counter a violence-laden ratings sweep, such as the one we had in May, with a sweep of their own. The V-chip technology proposed in this legislation allows parents to sweep out the excessive violence images from the TV screens at home, to screen their children from the harmful effects of televised violence.

In this way, parents are given the power to send a message directly to the industry. The Government will not be involved. This is the most democratic of initiatives--it gives the heartland the power to combat the excessive violence contained in programs like "Murder in the Heartland."

Today, with the introduction of the Television Violence Reduction Through Parental Empowerment Act, a broad bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress are acting to empower parents to protect their children from the tide of violent images that invades their living rooms every night.

This legislation contains two requirements:

First, TV sets must be capable of blocking programs based on a violence rating or advisory sent electronically by the broadcasters or cablecaster on line 21 of the vertical blanking interval; and

Second, TV sets must be capable of blocking the display of programs or time slots as well as channels so that parents can block and individual program even if it does not carry an advisory.

It is a fact of life that millions of kids no longer come home to mom or dad and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich after school. Millions of children in this country do not have direct parental supervision for a good portion of the day. Often they fill this time watching television. This is a fact of life. We need to deal with the situation as it really exists, not as we might like it to be. The television industry has a responsibility to help parents block violence --and to stop blocking parents.

Today we are calling on the broadcast, cable, and satellite industries to assist parents by sending, electronically, the advanced parental advisory for violence. This is the only way that parents can simply, easily, and effectively block out all programs rated violent by the industry and protect their children from watching these programs even if the parents are not in the room to supervise.

This legislation will fully protect the First Amendment rights of producers, writers and directors; and it will also protect the rights of parents to decide what their children watch on television. The Television Violence Reduction Through Parental Empowerment Act strikes the proper balance between these delicate interests.

This legislation is not a substitute for other important efforts to reduce epidemic levels of violence in society. There are many complex factors that contribute to the violence that invades our culture. Research has shown, however, that television plays a very significant part in creating this culture of violence --a culture where children learn that violence is no longer a last resort, but a first response to resolving conflicts and solving problems.

Television violence is only one part of the problem--and it can only be one part of the solution. But we can make progress on this remedy with the bill I am introducing today, the Television Violence Reduction Through Parental Empowerment Act of 1993.

The proposal for V-chip technology has received widespread support from television industry leaders, newspapers editors, public health professionals, and civic organizations as is indicated in the following statements I am including in my remarks. In particular, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the supportive comments of Newton N. Minow, former FCC Chairman, in the August 3, 1993, edition of the Wall Street Journal. I have also included the full text of this article in my remarks.

Newton Minow, the Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1993: "Today, a simple, inexpensive and readily available computer chip, if built into a TV set, could provide a technological answer * * * The Chip would exponentially expand the power of the remote control, making it possible for parents to lock out programs unsuitable for children. But if millions of other parents chose to block out [programming rated as violent], what concern is that of broadcasters, who for years have insisted that the public interest is whatever interests the public? * * * It is time we used the First Amendment to protect and nurture our children, rather than as an excuse to ignore them."

Ted Turner, Chairman, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.: "We are happy to strongly support your call for industry-developed violence ratings combined with a chip in television sets that would allow parents to block out violent programming. This approach will give parents a realistic chance to control their children's viewing."

John Hendricks, Chairman and CEO, Discovery Communications, Inc.: "Our company supports your two-pronged approach to addressing the problem of violence exposure to children. Your approach is not to, in any way, censor our cherished right to free expression but it is simply to devise effective methods that enable and empower parents to use television more responsibly for the ultimate benefit of our society."

Winston Cox, Chairman and CEO, Showtime Networks, Inc. and Chairman of the NCTA's Satellite Network Programmers Committee: "What we are talking about here is the presence of violence on television, because as television expands to 500 channels it becomes a much more pervasive delivery medium. We must provide adequate controls over access, and that is why I am very supportive of your proposal. The proposal recommends that the television industry adopt and implement a unified ratings system to give viewers the information they need to make informed viewing choices. The proposal would also mandate that new television sets contain technology capable of blocking out selected programs or channels. We support these two concepts."

Nickolas Davatzes, President and CEO, A&E Network: "You can be assure the A&E is prepared to participate in the development of an industry-wide ratings system * * * and also support the implementation of 'blocking chip' technology that would enable parents to prevent their children from viewing violent programming."

Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News and World Report, August 2, 1993: "The alert system is no more than a beginning, a recognition but not a resolution. The minimum next step is to take advantage of the technical capacity to manufacture TV sets with a computer chip that will allow parents, unilaterally, to block off programs carrying the V ratings--just as we now mandate sets to help the deaf. And with that should go an earnest effort by the creative controllers to take the V out of much more of their television."

Chicago Tribune, July 6, 1993: "The network's advisory system addresses only one-half of a solution to the TV violence dilemma: the need for information * * * Congress can supply the essential second half of the solution, however, by requiring manufacturers to give parents the power to block out shows they feel are unhealthy. After that, the consumers must let broadcasters and cable companies know, by their viewing choices, if indeed they want less violence on TV."

The Miami Herald, July 1, 1993: "The warnings will give viewers, especially parents, a modicum of control over what comes into their homes. The better solution would be a technological means for parents to block out offensive programs and channels. If viewers zap enough overly violent programs, broadcasters will have even stronger reason to zap them first--before the mayhem and gore get on the air."

The New York Times, July 1, 1993: "Mr. Markey says he'll continue to press for the installation of a computer chip in all new television sets. In this age of the two-paycheck family, parents aren't always around to monitor their youngsters. With that chip they could block out shows they didn't want their children to see. Mr. Markey is right to pursue. 'Some things aren't suitable for children' may be an old saw, but it still cuts true."

Dr. Robert E. McAfee, President-Elect, American Medical Association: "Measures which should be considered [by Congress] include requiring newly manufactured television sets, to the extent technologically feasible, to be equipped with a microchip that would give parents the ability to block out violent programs."

Mr. Williams S. Abbott, President, National Foundation to Improve Television: "We strongly support this initiative of Chairman Markey. The introduction of such an industry-initated ratings system and the accompanying technology would allow millions of concerned, but not omnipresent, parents to exercise more responsibility in their supervision of their children's viewing."

Joe M. Sanders, Jr., Executive Director, American Academy of Pediatrics: Rep. Markey's measure, in conjunction with increased educational and instructional programming and continued parental supervision, should help control the hazardous effects of violent television on children * * * we support the concept as an innovative solution that is consistent with our goal to increase parental control of television.

[FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AUG. 3, 1993]

(BY NEWTON N. MINOW)

Television producers, writers and network executives met yesterday in Beverly Hills with parents, psychologists and public officials to talk about television violence and its effect on children. This meeting of warring camps came after both houses of Congress held hearings on the subject this spring, and only a month after the television networks announced that they will begin labeling programs to alert parents to their violent content.

As expected, this "consciousness-raising" seminar, led by ABC's Jeff Greenfield, was strong on hand-wringing and soul-searching, was studiously polite and unusually educational. But it didn't go far enough. Few people seriously believe that the proposed warning system is equal to the problem, and most people think it will make the problem worse by drawing attention to especially offensive programs.

Nonetheless, the conference participants managed to tiptoe around the prospect of further action. And little wonder. Anyone who proposes doing anything more to curb violence is almost certain to be shouted down as a censor. This refrain is already de rigueur in the television industry, and Congress is understandably reluctant to get into the standards-and-practices side of television programming. Even many parents who think television violence is excessive are uncomfortable with judging speech.

They shouldn't be. If we really cared about our children, invocations of the First Amendment would mark the beginning, not the end, of such discussions. For more than a quarter century the Supreme Court has recognized the need to protect children from expression intended exclusively for adults. But providing such protection has proved especially difficult in broadcasting, which, unlike the magazine rack or the video store, cannot be partitioned or its contents hidden in a plain brown wrapper. Commenting on the broadcast industry's cynical demand that parents be ever vigilant against offense. Justice John Paul Stevens once wrote: "To say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio when he hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy for an assault is to run away after the first blow."

Today, a simple, inexpensive and readily available computer chip, if built into a TV set, could provide a technological answer to this old constitutional dilemma. The chip would exponentially expand the power of the remote control, making it possible for parents to lock out programs unsuitable for children, provided only that such programs are transmitted with a code that labels them as such. When Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey suggested that the chip be a required component of all television sets, broadcasters disdainfully dubbed this lock-out technology the 'v-chip' and equated it with censorship.

More likely is that the v-chip might chip into advertising revenues. After all, these are the same broadcasters who for generations have insisted that the responsibility for children's television belongs with parents, whose sole power resides in their control of the on-off switch. Now that a truly effective switch exists, the entertainment industry is indignant. "I'm opposed to a single button that can block out a whole program day or a single program week," said Motion Picture Association of America President Jack Valenti. Fox TV Chairman Lucie Salhany argues: "Quite frankly, the very idea of a v-chip scares me. I'm also very concerned about setting a precedent. Will we have an 's-chip' [for sex]?"

The real question is what kind of programming is appropriate for children, especially the millions who watch with little or no adult supervision. The best answer is simply to rate all programs in much the same way motion pictures are rated, thereby notifying parents of a program's suitability for children. Such ratings should apply to all broadcasters and all cable programmers.

Rating programs is not censorship--far from it. Indeed, when combined with lock-out technologies, a ratings system would actually extend the reach of free expression on television, allowing adults to watch whatever suited them while effectively eliminating children from the audience. Parents would still have to go to the trouble of locking out undesirable programs, and doubtless many would continue to neglect their primary responsibility of monitoring what their children watch. But if millions of other parents chose to block out "America's Most Wanted" or "NYPD Blue" (ABC's steamy new police drama), what concern is that of broadcasters, who for years have insisted that the public interest is whatever interests the public?

At bottom, the v-chip controversy is illustrative of the fact that while the "public interest" is supposed to be the guiding principle behind television regulation, neither Congress, the television industry nor the public itself has ever been clear on just where that interest lies. The debate over televised violence offers an opportunity to rethink the question at a propitious time, as television is being transformed into a new, interactive medium.

Those meeting yesterday in Beverly Hills had the first opportunity to address these essentially moral questions in a serious way. Even if their effort fell short, the discussion they began must not be allowed to close with the conference. It is time we used the First Amendment to protect and nurture our children, rather than as an excuse to ignore them.

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2888

  To require new television sets to have built-in circuitry to allow 
        viewers to block the display of programs rated violent.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 5, 1993

    Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields of Texas, Ms. 
Margolies-Mezvinsky, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Slattery, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Cooper, 
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Synar, Ms. Shepherd, Mr. Glickman, Ms. Schenk, and Mr. 
    Towns) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To require new television sets to have built-in circuitry to allow 
        viewers to block the display of programs rated violent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Television Violence Reduction 
Through Parental Empowerment Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) To the fullest extent possible, parents should be 
        empowered with the technology to choose to block the display on 
        their televisions of programs they consider too violent for 
        their children.
            (2) Violence now touches the lives of American children 
        more than adults. From 1982 through 1984, teenagers were the 
        victims of 1,800,000 violent crimes, twice the annual rate of 
        the adult population over age 20. According to the American 
        Academy of Pediatrics, one of every 8 deaths among children age 
        10-14 years old in 1990 was caused by a shooting. Among 
        teenagers and young adults, that figure rose to one of every 
        four deaths.
            (3) Children watch an extensive amount of television. It is 
        estimated that a child watches approximately 22,000 hours of 
        television before finishing high school, almost twice the 
        amount of time spent in the classroom.
            (4) The amount of violence on television has reached 
        epidemic levels. The American Psychological Association 
        estimates that the average child witnesses 8,000 murders and 
        100,000 acts of violence before finishing elementary school.
            (5) Three Surgeon Generals, the National Institute of 
        Mental Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the American 
        Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 
        the American Psychological Association have concurred for 
        nearly 20 years as to the deleterious effects of television 
        violence on children.
            (6) Despite periodic television industry efforts to reduce 
        the amount of television violence, reductions in the level of 
        televised violence have never been long lasting.
            (7) Parents who are working are unable to constantly 
        monitor the television viewing habits of their children. 
        Advanced television technologies such as channel compression 
        and digitization will allow the expansion of channel capacity 
        to levels even more unmanageable for parents who want to 
        protect their children from televised violence.
            (8) The major broadcast networks and a large number of 
        cable channels have agreed to place parental advisories on 
        programs they consider to be too violent for children. These 
        parental advisories are of limited use to parents if they are 
        not watching television with their children.
            (9) The technology currently exists to equip television 
        sets at a nominal cost to permit parents to block the display 
        of television programs they consider too violent for children. 
        However, this technology will only be effective (A) if all 
        television programmers send any adopted rating or warning 
        system electronically with the program signal, and (B) parents 
        are able to block the display not only of individual programs 
        but to block out automatically and simultaneously all programs 
        with such rating.
            (10) Congress calls upon the broadcast networks, 
        independent television stations, cable programmers, and 
        satellite programmers to protect the parental right to guide 
        the television viewing habits of children by sending any 
        adopted rating or warning system electronically with the 
        program signal.

SEC. 3. EQUIP TELEVISIONS TO BLOCK PROGRAMS.

    Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 303) is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
    ``(v) Require that (1) apparatus designed to receive television 
signals be equipped with circuitry designed to enable viewers to block 
the display of channels, programs, and time slots; and (2) such 
apparatus enable viewers to block display of all programs with a common 
rating. The requirements of this subsection shall apply when such 
apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in 
the United States, and its television picture screen is 13 inches or 
greater in size, measured diagonally.''.

SEC. 4. SHIPPING OR IMPORTING.

    (a) Regulations.--Section 330 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 330) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (2) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
        section:
    ``(c) No person shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, 
assemble, or import from any foreign country into the United States, 
any apparatus described in section 303(v) of this Act except in 
accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant to the 
authority granted by that section. Such rules shall provide performance 
standards for such blocking technology. Such rules shall further 
require that all such apparatus be able to receive the rating signals 
which have been transmitted by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
interval and which conform to the signal and blocking specifications 
established by the Commission. As new video technology is developed, 
the Commission shall take such action as the Commission determines 
appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be available 
to consumers. This subsection shall not apply to carriers transporting 
such apparatus without trading it.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 330(d) of such Act, as 
redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking ``section 303(s), and 
section 303(u)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and sections 303(s), 
303(u), and 303(v)''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by sections 3 and 4 of this Act shall take 
effect one year after enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. RULES.

    The Federal Communications Commission shall promulgate rules to 
implement the amendments made by this Act within 180 days after the 
date of its enactment.

                                 

By Mr. DORGAN:

S. 1811. A bill to require new television sets to have built-in circuitry to allow viewers to block the display of programs rated violent; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The Television Violence Reduction Through Parental Empowerment Act

Mr. DORGAN: Mr. President, last August, Representative Ed Markey and several colleagues introduced legislation in the other body that would empower parents to deal with violence on television. Specifically, it would require that television sets include a technical devise parents could use to block out television programs that are, in their judgment, too violent for their children. At the request of Representative Markey, I am introducing this legislation in the Senate today so that we can also consider this approach, commonly known as the V-chip bill, in the current debate over how we should address the problem of violence on television.

My colleagues are familiar with the debate that has been taking place, not just in the Congress, but in the administration and within the television industry this year. While this issue certainly is not new, public outcry has intensified in the past year.

Both the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on this issue last year and a number of bills have been introduced in the Senate. I believe that Representative Markey's V-chip legislation is an important part of a legislative response to the problem of violence on television and I support it.

Earlier this year I introduced the Television Violence Report Card Act which can work together with the V-chip concept. Both these approaches have a common goal: To empower parents and the public, rather than Government bureaucrats. My report card legislation would arm the public with information to enable them to send a message through the market place, directly to the industry. The V -chip approach gives parents technological empowerment to vote through their television sets. Both these bills would address television violence by giving the public more tools with which to register their own votes in the marketplace. As I have said on many other occasions, this is a much better way to address television violence, than is Government regulation.

The V-chip bill requires that television sets be capable of blocking programs which are coded with a violence rating. The legislation also requires that television sets be equipped with blocking capability for time slots so that parents can block an individual program even if it does not carry a violence advisory.

As I mentioned before, I believe that the V-chip approach that Representative Markey has been pushing is an essential part of the debate on television violence. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and in general work with us to advance a solution to television violence that enables the public and parents in particular to send a direct message to the industry. They, and not the Government nor the industry, should have the ultimate say in what should and should not be on television. The V-chip bill is a means to give consumers another tool.

In recent weeks parts of the television industry have responded in a positive way to begin to address the issue of violence during times when children are watching.

But we need to do more, and the V-chip proposal, as well as the television violence report cord, are two proposals that will make a difference.

EMPOWERING PARENTS AND THE PUBLIC: THE KEY TO A SOLUTION FOR TELEVISION VIOLENCE (Senate - February 1, 1994)

Mr. DORGAN: Mr. President, today the cable television industry announced a plan that will--it says--stop the violence that cable operators have been pouring into the American home. The broadcast networks have expressed an intention to follow suit on some of the initiatives.

The details of these plans are still fuzzy. Basically, they are, among other things, proposing to contract with outside experts to review their programs and possibly assign ratings to them.

We should all applaud the industry for coming this far. We should especially applaud the leaders in the industry who have dragged along their reluctant cohorts--the ones who prefer to keep their heads in the sand. These leaders have opened a dialog that may make it possible to truly address this problem.

I also think that we need to commend our colleague, Senator Simon, whose leadership was critical to these developments. The Senator from Illinois has helped bring this issue to the forefront of the Nation's attention and I am sure that many of my colleagues share my admiration and gratitude for his work in this area.

But we need to remember too that nothing has happened yet. The industry has declared its good intentions, nothing more.

The history of this issue provides a cautionary tale. Time and again over the last four decades, parents and clergy have expressed dismay over the violent fare that broadcast corporations were offering to young children. Time and again Congress has held hearings. Each time the industry has made earnest promises of reform.

Yet each time, those executives went back to New York or Hollywood and soon the violence was getting worse again. During the 1980's, while the administration in Washington was looking the other way, the gore and mayhem reached record levels. It probably is not a total coincidence that the inner city children who absorbed that onslaught of media violence in the 1980's, are now repeating it as teen-agers in the 1990's.

We all know that crime has many causes. But we also know, if we are honest, that the mayhem in the media isn't helping. The problem is imply too important to leave to good intentions. Public pressure, focused through Congress, has brought the media this far. Our colleague, Senator Paul Simon, raised this issue onto the national agenda, almost by himself. He deserves the gratitude of all of us, and of the entire nation.

The job is not done, and we in Congress have to stay on the case until the job is done

I do think we should meet the industry half way. If they show real progress, and put in place a mechanism that truly stems the violence and will continue to do so, then to that extent--and only that extent--we should let them alone. But we still need guard-rails to keep the industry from slipping. We still need to bolster the responsible voices in the industry who, without our pressure, never would have gotten this far.

The question is how to do so. As I have said time and again in this Chamber, it is not the role of government in this country to tell the media what it can portray nor individuals what they can watch. Our Nation just doesn't work that way. It is the role of government, however, to provide information to parents and others--information that they could not gather themselves--to help them make their own informed choices.

That is the approach I have taken. Under my bill calling for a television violence report card, there would be no censors, no ratings, no attempt to judge the ultimate value of individual shows. Instead, the Federal Government would support the production of a simple study that showed parents the number of acts of violence in each show, and the sponsors of those shows.

This information would come out quarterly, including at least one sweeps week. It would serve as an early warning system, a signal to parents regarding the shows they might want to take a closer look at. It would boost their efforts to monitor their children's viewing and to make their own judgments.

But it would not put the Federal Government into the role of judge or censor. It would give more power to parents, not to the Federal Government.

Because the industry has taken a first step toward cleaning up its own act, I intend to modify my bill in two important ways. First, the original version would have given the job of conducting the surveys to the Federal Communications Commission. Industry people have complained that regulators should not have this role, and I have decided that there is some validity to their concerns. For that reason, I am redrafting the bill to provide that the surveys be carried out by a private entity, contracting through the National Telecommunications Industry Administration under the National Endowment for Children's Educational Television program.

In addition, in light of the industry initiative, my modified version would sunset after 2 years. Then Congress could assess the situation. If the media shows it can restrain itself, and provides a real, effective mechanism to warn parents of the violence in different programs, then Congress could decide to stop the surveys that I am proposing.

For the last 40 years, America has developed technology of incredible sophistication for projecting images of violence into the American home. It started with the TV sets of the early 1950's, with the tiny black and white screens. From there we went to big screens, color, stereo sound, and VCR's. High definition television and the communications superhighway are just over the horizon.

The technology for producing media violence has become incredibly sophisticated as well.

Yet through all this, America has done virtually nothing to give parents more tools to cope with this violence--to control the flood of it into their homes. Most parents try. But they simply aren't able to sit by the set all day and monitor every show.

My television violence report card is one way to address that, but there is another as well.

That's why I introduced S. 1811, the Television Violence Reductions Through Parental Empowerment Act in the Senate yesterday. This is a companion bill to the V-chip legislation that Congressman Edward Markey has pioneered in the other body. The V-chip is an effective way to address TV violence that gives more power to parents rather than to government. It would enable parents to lock the set, just as they lock their cars or their front doors. For the first time since the invention of television, it would enable them to eject from their living rooms the shows they don't want their children to see.

Television has done something that never occurred before in human history. It has given adults a way to bypass the parents, get past the front door, and speak directly to children. The V-chip would enable parents to lock the front door again. With it, they could send a message to the networks and cable channels through the free marketplace, without bureaucracy or government censorship of any kind.

The V-chip will be an important part of a solution. For the first time in this country, it would provide a boost for parents who want to keep portrayals of violence out of their homes. It is not censorship. It simply gives parents a tool to help supervise their childrens television viewing.

I want to commend Congressman Markey for his leadership on this issue. Without his efforts, it would not be on the national agenda the way it is today.

The media have turned the living rooms of this country into arenas for the display of bloodshed and gore. They have taught our children that violence is glamorous and cool and is the way that adults solve their problems. Parents are outraged, and rightfully so. Now we have an opportunity to address this problem. It is part of the unfinished business of the media age.

The technology of media violence has become ever more sophisticated. Very soon, high definition television will crank it up to yet another level. We simply have to right the balance, give parents more tools to restrain this invasion of their homes--one that no parents in history have had to confront.

We welcome the desire of the media to get its own house in order. To the extent that it does, then our efforts will be unnecessary. But until it does, we in Congress must keep pushing.

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1811

  To require new television sets to have built-in circuitry to allow 
        viewers to block the display of programs rated violent.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 31 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

  Mr. Dorgan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To require new television sets to have built-in circuitry to allow 
        viewers to block the display of programs rated violent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Television Violence Reduction 
Through Parental Empowerment Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) To the fullest extent possible, parents should be 
        empowered with the technology to choose to block the display on 
        their televisions of programs they consider too violent for 
        their children.
            (2) Violence now touches the lives of American children 
        more than adults. From 1982 through 1984, teenagers were the 
        victims of 1,800,000 violent crimes, twice the annual rate of 
        the adult population over age 20. According to the American 
        Academy of Pediatrics, one of every 8 deaths among children age 
        10-14 years old in 1990 was caused by a shooting. Among 
        teenagers and young adults, that figure rose to one of every 
        four deaths.
            (3) Children watch an extensive amount of television. It is 
        estimated that a child watches approximately 22,000 hours of 
        television before finishing high school, almost twice the 
        amount of time spent in the classroom.
            (4) The amount of violence on television has reached 
        epidemic levels. The American Psychological Association 
        estimates that the average child witnesses 8,000 murders and 
        100,000 acts of violence before finishing elementary school.
            (5) Three Surgeon Generals, the National Institute of 
        Mental Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the American 
        Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 
        the American Psychological Association have concurred for 
        nearly 20 years as to the deleterious effects of television 
        violence on children.
            (6) Despite periodic television industry efforts to reduce 
        the amount of television violence, reductions in the level of 
        televised violence have never been long lasting.
            (7) Parents who are working are unable to constantly 
        monitor the television viewing habits of their children. 
        Advanced television technologies such as channel compression 
        and digitization will allow the expansion of channel capacity 
        to levels even more unmanageable for parents who want to 
        protect their children from televised violence.
            (8) The major broadcast networks and a large number of 
        cable channels have agreed to place parental advisories on 
        programs they consider to be too violent for children. These 
        parental advisories are of limited use to parents if they are 
        not watching television with their children.
            (9) The technology currently exists to equip television 
        sets at a nominal cost to permit parents to block the display 
        of television programs they consider too violent for children. 
        However, this technology will only be effective (A) if all 
        television programmers send any adopted rating or warning 
        system electronically with the program signal, and (B) parents 
        are able to block the display not only of individual programs 
        but to block out automatically and simultaneously all programs 
        with such rating.
            (10) Congress calls upon the broadcast networks, 
        independent television stations, cable programmers, and 
        satellite programmers to protect the parental right to guide 
        the television viewing habits of children by sending any 
        adopted rating or warning system electronically with the 
        program signal.

SEC. 3. EQUIP TELEVISIONS TO BLOCK PROGRAMS.

    Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 303) is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
    ``(v) Require that (1) apparatus designed to receive television 
signals be equipped with circuitry designed to enable viewers to block 
the display of channels, programs, and time slots; and (2) such 
apparatus enable viewers to block display of all programs with a common 
rating. The requirements of this subsection shall apply when such 
apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in 
the United States, and its television picture screen is 13 inches or 
greater in size, measured diagonally.''.

SEC. 4. SHIPPING OR IMPORTING.

    (a) Regulations.--Section 330 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 330) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (2) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
        section:
    ``(c) No person shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, 
assemble, or import from any foreign country into the United States, 
any apparatus described in section 303(v) of this Act except in 
accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant to the 
authority granted by that section. Such rules shall provide performance 
standards for such blocking technology. Such rules shall further 
require that all such apparatus be able to receive the rating signals 
which have been transmitted by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
interval and which conform to the signal and blocking specifications 
established by the Commission. As new video technology is developed, 
the Commission shall take such action as the Commission determines 
appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be available 
to consumers. This subsection shall not apply to carriers transporting 
such apparatus without trading it.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 330(d) of such Act, as 
redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking ``section 303(s), and 
section 303(u)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and sections 303(s), 
303(u), and 303(v)''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by sections 3 and 4 of this Act shall take 
effect one year after enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. RULES.

    The Federal Communications Commission shall promulgate rules to 
implement the amendments made by this Act within 180 days after the 
date of its enactment.