Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mrs. Emerson Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H4477]] The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Part A amendment No. 32 offered by Mrs. Emerson: Add at the end the following: SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS WITH REGARD TO VIOLENCE AND THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) Incidents of tragic school violence have risen over the past few years. (2) Our children are being desensitized by the increase of gun violence shown on television, movies, and video games. (3) According to the American Medical Association, by the time an average child reaches age 18, he or she has witnessed more than 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 16,000 murders. (4) Children who listen to explicit music lyrics, play video ``killing'' games, or go to violent action movies get further brainwashed into thinking that violence is socially acceptable and without consequence. (5) No industry does more to glorify gun violence than some elements of the motion picture industry. (6) Children are particularly susceptible to the influence of violent subject matter. (7) The entertainment industry uses wanton violence in its advertising campaigns directed at young people. (8) Alternatives should be developed and considered to discourage the exposure of children to violent subject matter. (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that the entertainment industry-- (1) has been irresponsible in the development of its products and the marketing of those products to America's youth; (2) must recognize the power and influence it has over the behavior of our Nation's youth; and (3) must do everything in its power to stop these portrayals of pointless acts of brutality by immediately eliminating gratuitous violence in movies, television, music, and video games. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting

to note that Leslie Moonves, the President of CBS television, recently said that while it is not fair to blame the media for the rampage at Columbine, anyone who thinks the media has nothing to do with this is an idiot. I think Mr. Moonves' comment really sums up why we are offering this amendment today. We have heard a lot about gun shows, pawn shops and ammo clips over the months since the violence at Columbine. We have been told that if we tweak the law a little bit here, or add a new provision to make something else illegal, somehow people who recklessly and purposely gun down others in cold blood will not do it. Thirty years ago, we had very few gun laws and surprisingly no high school shooting sprees to report every few days or weeks or months, but 30 years ago we also had stricter discipline in schools. School officials did not worry about lawsuits if they expelled a violent child, and parents exerted more control and discipline over their children. They were not afraid to say no to their kids. Now we have a new gun law every year. We have school officials who are afraid of being sued and we have a Federal law which seems designed to keep violent kids in classrooms, not out of them. We have an industry that in the name of entertainment produces images of violence that are so graphic and at a pace that makes one dizzy. Why is anyone surprised that in these modern days that some students plan mass murders instead of graduation parties? I stand here not just as a Member of Congress, I stand here as a mother who is deeply, deeply concerned about the safety and well-being of my children. {time} 1030 I stand here as a neighbor and as a parent of a high school junior who is concerned about the safety and the well-being of my neighbors' kids and my daughter's friends. The tragedy at Columbine High School and the violence close to schools and close to my district in Paducah, Kentucky, and in Jonesboro, Arkansas, should be a real wake-up call for all of us. We have got to work together. We have got to work together to give back families a sense of security and control over their own lives. That is what our amendment to the juvenile justice bill seeks to do. It seeks to generate a serious dialogue in our Nation about the negative images that our children are exposed to when they watch television, when they go to the movies, when they play video games, and when they listen to CDs. This dialogue needs to take place in our homes, in our communities; yes, it also needs to take place in the Halls of Congress. Specifically, our amendment calls on the entertainment industry to recognize the power and the influence it has over our Nation's youth. We ask that the industry does everything in its power to eliminate gratuitous acts of violence in movies, on television, in music lyrics, and in video games.

If we invest the time and the energy to have this discussion, I think we can discover ways to address the factors that contribute to youth violence in America. Now, there may be some things that we can do legislatively, but the bottom line is, quite frankly, much of the solution cannot be legislated. Our amendment does not create any new laws. It does not create any new regulations. Our amendment does not fund yet another study on the already well-documented impact that violence as entertainment has on our Nation's youth. I hope that our amendment sends a very clear message to the entertainment industry that Congress and the American people do hold them responsible for the desensitizing images that they market to our children. After all, we would really, really have to be idiots if we think the entertainment industry does not have anything to do with youth violence in America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) seek to control the time in opposition? Mr. BERMAN. I do, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 20 minutes. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not think anyone in today's modern society can deny the power of the entertainment industry, of the movie industry, of the TV media. We know that this is an industry that can make us cry, that can raise goose pimples on our skin. It can make the hair on the back of our neck stand up. The industry should never deny its power. In conversations with many executives, they have thought from time to time it was rather foolish for an industry that can convey all of these emotions, that can change the direction of society with uplifting movies, can repeat the history in realistic movies, to deny that power. But we also know that where we run into trouble with the media industry is where the media industry has access to our children in a vacuum, where the media, the entertainment industry has access to our children in a disproportionate number of hours during the day, when the media and the entertainment industry become substitutes for what families should, in fact, be doing. Because the same research that tells us rather convincingly that the media can have a very powerful impact on our children, that the entertainment industry can help desensitize our children to violence, to the acts of violence, that it, in fact, can teach them how to perpetrate violence, the same research and additional research makes a very important point. Where they have strong family bonding, effective teaching of moral values and norms, and effective monitoring of behavior, the effective exposure to violence on TV is probably negligible. So, really, what this amendment is about is about whether or not we are prepared to choose, whether or not we as families with children and grandchildren are prepared to choose. We can let the media, we can let the entertainment industry become a substitute for our families. We can let our children have access to it without guidelines, without some sense of discipline. We [[Page H4478]] can let it become the teacher of our children, or we can choose to become the teacher of our children. We can let it baby-sit de facto, become the baby-sitter for our children, provide day care for our children; or, in fact, we can spend time with our children. We can decide whether or not it becomes a substitute for our reading to our children. We can decide whether it becomes a substitute for our conversations with our children on values, on ethics, on sex. That is the decision that we have to make. Because it is not the media in and of itself, it is not the entertainment industry in and of itself that creates this problem. It is in combination with the vacuum that is created by families that creates a vacuum, because they, in fact, have made other choices in their life, some out of necessity, some out of neglect, and some because simply that is what they want to do. But they have made choices, as we have documented time and time again. They are spending less time with their children. They are having fewer conversations with their children. They are spending less time at the breakfast table, at the dinner table, some because they have very long commutes, some because I guess they choose not to spend time with their children. That is where the problem in this intersection of this very powerful industry comes into play. I do not think they can solve that by having a blanket condemnation of that industry. I do not think they can do that, because I do not think, then, it is realistic to the children who they are trying to address. They understand the differences between uplifting movies, movies like ``Schindler's List,'' movies like ``Star Wars,'' movies like ``Notting Hill,'' movies that portray life as they see it, and movies that have nothing to do but pursue the exploitation of women, sex, and violence. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to take a look at the language of the amendment. It does not, in fact, condemn the industry. It simply asks them to admit that it has a responsibility for the power that violence has on television and its impact on children, but also asks them to sit down with us in serious dialogue. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the gentlewoman. I think that conversation and responsibility also has to take place in our families. That conversation has to take place. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for yielding me this time. As a member of the committee and on behalf of the subcommittee chairman and committee chairman, both of whom support the gentlewoman's amendment, I would say that our children are being desensitized by the increase of violence shown on television and in movies and in video games. According to the American Medical Association, by the time an average child has reached the age of 18, he or she has witnessed something like 200,000 acts of violence on television, including over 16,000 murders. Children are particularly susceptible to the influence of violent subject matter. The entertainment industry must recognize the power and influence it has over the behavior of our Nation's youth. The entertainment industry should do everything in its power to stop these portrayals of pointless acts of brutality, pointless, by eliminating gratuitous acts of violence in movies and in television and in video games. Again, on behalf of the committee, I want to very much support and thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for offering this amendment. I think it is appropriate. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). , I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. We are in the middle of a historic national dialogue on how to reduce violence in our society and make America a safer place for children to grow up. I believe that the more this dialogue is about finding solutions, and the less it is about fixing blame, the more productive the dialogue will be. Simply blaming the entertainment industry for youth violence is not productive any more than simply blaming schools or blaming young people in general is productive. Our job is to find practical, effective solutions to the problems of youth violence. The debate today has largely focused on movies, television, and the Internet and video games. Yes, we should encourage the entertainment companies to take any and all steps to prevent objectionable, violent material from getting into the hands of children. Certainly we should support policies that empower parents to know the contents of movies and video games and help them to steer their kids away from violent, debasing entertainment and towards wholesome and productive pursuits. But we must not fail to address issues that I strongly believe strike nearer to the root of the problem of youth violence. I am deeply saddened that the Committee on Rules struck down an amendment that would have made a giant step in the right direction. I join my fellow Democrats in urging that the juvenile justice bill do more to help our local communities and local districts to help our kids keep out of trouble when they are most at risk, immediately after school. Yet the Republican leadership said no to providing the resources that will help our kids by providing wholesome and productive after-school activities for our children. Democrats called for tripling the amount of Federal support for after-school programs, including tutoring and mentoring and healthy recreational activities. We called for filling in the risky hours of the days, the hours after school while the opportunity for more youngsters to improve their schoolwork, grow as responsible citizens, learn values, and build stronger minds and bodies. To me, that seems like a practical and effective solution to the pathology that leads to youth violence. But the Republican leadership said no. Now I fear that we are on the verge of a marathon demonization of the entertainment industry, a tactic of limited value, especially compared to the real-world practical and effective strategies such as tutoring and mentoring, counseling, and wholesome recreation. We can rest assured that if we do not make it a national priority to provide for our young people activities that are wholesome and necessary for them to grow into strong, healthy adults, that they will be prey to the temptations of the streets and to other destructive influences. I urge my colleagues to rein in the urge to simply assess blame to the entertainment industry. Let us all work together as parents. Let us instead focus on protecting our youth by providing the resources they need, especially in the high-risk after-school hours. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I might add quickly here that, while the people in opposition to this amendment keep saying, do not blame any industry, do not blame any industry, we all have to work together, I would ask what they all have been doing blaming the gun industry, then, for all these weeks? Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from

Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment expressing a sense of Congress on this very most important topic. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for her leadership on this issue, because she has pushed, I think, something that needs to be touched; and she has hit it very, very well. I appreciate her leadership in many ways, but particularly here. Mr. Chairman, while we must take a long, hard look at all aspects of our juvenile justice system, can there be any doubt, any doubt at all, that the entertainment industry is contributing to the culture of violence that manifested itself in Colorado; in Georgia; in Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Paducah, Kentucky? [[Page H4479]] These senseless acts of schoolhouse violence committed by children against children have rightfully captured the Nation's attention, and it is time for Congress to move forward with comprehensive legislation that addresses the growing epidemic of violent juvenile crime. Part of this response must include a strong statement against often senseless and graphic violence being peddled by the so-called entertainment industry. They do bear responsibility for what comes out. The point has been made, but it bears repeating. By the age of 18, the average child in the United States will have witnessed 200,000 acts of violence and some 16,000 plus murders through our popular culture. {time} 1045 Mr. Chairman, to call this entertainment stretches the definition of the English language. What it really is is mindless brutality, having the effect of coarsening our culture, with the devastating impact on impressionable young people. The effect of this media is a slow and steady erosion of our fundamental values of decency, honor and respect. As the elected representatives of this great country, those of us fortunate enough to have the privilege of speaking for our constituents have a duty, I think, and an obligation, to use the bully pulpit that this House affords to say to the entertainment industry ``Stop, think, change.'' The Emerson amendment calls upon those responsible for our popular culture to acknowledge the enormous influence they have over America's children, to exercise some responsibility and just a little bit of decency when making and marketing their product. We have a duty to enforce and defend the first amendment. Likewise, the entertainment industry has a duty to use judgment, decency and restraint when it comes to our children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to report this very common-sense amendment.

 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, to this language, not because I have any doubts about the sincerity and good intentions of the sponsor, and not because I have any particular disagreement with the substantive words contained in the resolution, but because I believe it is both woefully imbalanced and terribly inappropriate. The gentlewoman, through her amendment, seeks to select out one industry, excluding a variety of other industries that do the exact same thing, in part, and then chastises that industry in a fashion that she may not intend. She may not be intending to condemn an industry, but I assure my colleagues the passage of this amendment will be reported as a condemnation of an industry. And what is this industry? This is an industry that produces some of the most powerful teaching instruments available to the people of this country and to the world. And let us talk about them. Where is the recognition that this is an industry that produced and distributed Saving Private Ryan, teaching Americans and the world about the courage of American soldiers, the commitment to the country's patriotic ideals, to the brutality of war? Where is the recognition that this is the industry that produced Amistad, revealing a very important segment of the history of slavery in this country? Or Schindler's List, which told the story of the holocaust in a fashion so powerful that people who had never before contemplated what that meant had a new understanding of it? Where is the recognition that this is an industry that has produced for our children movies like The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast? Where is the recognition that there is music that has uplifted the spirits and souls of millions and millions of people all around the world?

This is an unbalanced and unfair resolution. Sure, there are irresponsible actors, absolutely there is inappropriate marketing, absolutely there are cases of pointless and senseless brutality being depicted. To select out one industry and exclude all other industries who engage in the same kind of conduct, and to treat it in such an unbalanced fashion is not worthy of this House. It is no more fair than my offering a resolution attacking the pharmaceutical industry because one drug company marketed a drug they knew to be harmful to people, or condemning the entire construction industry for the role of asbestos. Where do we get off going after an industry in this kind of a fashion without recognizing the good as well as the bad? These are people that employ hundreds of thousands of people in this country, that contribute tremendous amounts to the education and the inspiration of the American people, as well as the negatives that the gentlewoman points out. Why does this amendment exclude books and other powerful means of communication that perhaps at times, with specific authors and certain publishers, might engage in pointless acts of brutality? Where do we come off as a Congress of the United States, as the House of Representatives, memorializing and institutionalizing this kind of unbalanced frontal attack on an industry without recognizing the good along with the bad? I think it is a bad amendment, and even as I agree with specific substantive points in the language, I do not think this body should be adopting this kind of proposal. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, if the gentleman from California would be willing, to extend our time 7\1/2\ minutes on each side, because we have numerous speakers and not enough time, unless the gentleman from California would like to yield us some of his time. This is an important discussion and I think it is a good one that is worth having. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how much time does each side have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) is recognized under his reservation. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire of the gentlewoman, the unanimous consent request would allow how much more time? Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BERMAN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request would allow each side to have 7\1/2\ additional minutes, 15 minutes total. Mr. BERMAN. That is a lot more time on a very busy day. Mrs. EMERSON. I think the gentleman would agree it is worthwhile. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Missouri? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) shall each have 7\1/2\ additional minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I come to the well today as a Member of the House, but more importantly as the father of a 12-year-old and a 10-year-old stating that there is no more important domestic issue that we could focus our undivided attention on than this issue of children killing other children and what the causes and effects are of this terrible sign in our society. Almost a thousand studies since 1971 document that mass media influences children who cannot differentiate between reality and fantasy, causing them to be more violent, even causing them to do what does not come natural, and that is to kill another human being. Even rattlesnakes do not kill other rattlesnakes. Our military had a problem, Mr. Chairman. Colonel David Grossman, a psychologist, a renowned expert in the [[Page H4480]] field of killology, a part of psychology, says that in World War II our soldiers would not even pull the trigger when an enemy was in front of them. Only 20 percent, at most, would actually pull the trigger. It does not come naturally. So they took the bulls off the firing range and put a human figure and they began desensitization techniques and therapy, and by the Korean War it got up to 40 percent. And then technology set in and they used simulators, much like we have today, and by the time of Vietnam, 90 percent of our soldiers would actually kill. It does not come natural. My colleagues, our children, by the age of 6, are experiencing the same desensitization therapies. Video games, Karmageddon. The video game Doom is used by our military to train soldiers how to kill, and our children are being inundated with these violent products. Let me tell my colleagues that this week, in a shameless way, the entertainment and mass media industry is working this hill over like no one can believe, around the clock, trying to push back any kind of common-sense approaches, like uniform labeling, so parents will know what is going on. That amendment will be up in an hour and a half, and the entertainment industry is working around the clock to try to defeat any common-sense approaches so that informed parents can make responsible decisions. But this is unequivocal. These influences are taking our children in the wrong direction. Splatter movies are not responsible. The entertainment industry has a responsibility. We do not want to place blame, but we want people to be responsible. Industries are profiting from trash going into the minds of our children. If it was alcohol or drugs going into our bodies, we would not stand for it, but the same kinds of evil influences are going into the minds of children, so we should not be so surprised when they turn around and act the way they do. Something needs to be done. Somebody has to stand up for parents and families, not these big special interests with all the money. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) the ranking member of the committee. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am happy to join in this discussion. I had some talk with the maker of this particular amendment and we had not reached much of a conclusion, but now I have. There are several problematical things behind a well-intentioned resolution. First of all, this may be, in the 175 amendments that have been submitted to the Committee on Rules, the only sense of Congress resolution in a huge bill. In other words, all of these other measures that are approved have a lot to do with something very, very specific. We have measures, and have debated them, to create increased protection for communities and holding juveniles more accountable; we have created entire new systems of punishment for juveniles. We have done a lot of things, but we have not done a sense of the Congress resolution against anybody yet except the entertainment industry. Now, it is my view that what the entertainment industry really needs is some specific direction from us as to what it is we want them to do. I will shortly have the results of some hearings held in the Committee on the Judiciary in which we had a number of experts, academic, people in the industry, people who are critics of the industry, and industry spokesmen themselves, which I would like to make my colleagues the beneficiary of in terms of the nature of the kinds of things that we can do. And so a sense of Congress resolution would be great if we were not here dealing with the amendments made in order for the Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999. In other words, this is showdown time. The question is not how we feel about the industry or what we do not like about it, the question is what are we going to do about it. And it is to that idea that a sense of Congress resolution is not what we need. What we need are something like the hundreds of amendments that have come forward out of the dozens of hours of debate on this subject. The next thing that I think we ought to put in to some kind of perspective is that the gentlewoman mentioned that there are people that do not want to condemn the entertainment industry but they do want to condemn the gun industry. Well, that may be so. There are probably people that want to do one thing or the other, but this is not condemnation time. This is showdown time. This is what we do about the problems that we believe to exist. The Committee on the Judiciary has debated and discussed this for many, many hours, and what we want is not a sense of Congress resolution but something quite specific. And so I want to point out that we do have an amendment to create an anti-trust exemption so that we will be able to work industry-wide in any corrective action that we need. {time} 1100 We also have other recommendations that I will be reporting back to my colleagues. But for sense of Congress resolutions, I am sorry to say the time has come and gone. We are now in the put up or shut up phase. What is it, assuming that everything you say in the resolution is correct, then what do we do? And that is what the amendments that were granted by the Committee on Rules, the substitute that I will shortly be offering today, all try to do. It is in that sense that I wanted to make clear the reservations that I have about a sense of Congress resolution at this point in time in these proceedings. Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a friendly question? Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, although my colleague cannot support this, I do appreciate what he is doing through the format of hearings and looking into it. And I think that he will find, while we all have reservations about one thing or the other, we do want to work any way we can to protect children, give them more positive messages. I want to say, I think my colleague will find the authors of this amendment are certainly willing to help his committee any way we can in a positive sense. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we welcome that. This is not an easy problem. It is a very intractable problem. It is deep within our culture. If we could just single out a couple of people and spank them on the hands or pass a condemnation resolution, I guess my colleagues would feel better about it. But it will not change anything. What I am here for yesterday and last night, today and tonight and tomorrow, is to try to come to closure with the entertainment industry as to what it is precisely we want them to do. And in that regard, I would welcome the comments of the gentlewoman and working together with her and everything else that we can. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth). Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Emerson resolution. Because, Mr. Chairman, before completing the sixth grade, the average American child has seen 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on television and in the movies. Now, how can we possibly say that this massive exposure to murder and to violence no way influences the minds of young men and women? There is no way we can. And in fact, a recent survey of young American males found that 22 to 34 percent of those young men who had been exposed to this kind of violence and murder actually tried to perform the same crime techniques. Mr. Chairman, I was deeply moved by the testimony given in the House Committee on the Judiciary by Darryl Scott, the father of a slain daughter in the Littleton, Colorado, massacre. This remarkable father testified in part, ``I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy, it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies.'' ``Men and women are three-part beings,'' he testified. He continued, ``We all consist of body, soul and spirit. And when we [[Page H4481]] refuse to acknowledge a third part of our makeup, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc.'' 8 I am asking the Democrats to put their entertainment bias, whatever, aside and stand up with the Republicans and say, we do condemn these kind of games. We do assess some blame. Obviously, as the Republicans have stated time and time again, it comes to family responsibility. But there is community responsibility which is a contributing factor. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) if he would remain at the lectern and answer questions on my time. Does the gentleman know the name of the manufacturer of that video game? Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I do. It is Interplay Corporation, based out of California. Just for the information of my colleagues, the web site is ``www.kingpin.corpse''. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman, then offer a resolution condemning the company that produced this game. Do not give a speech talking about the emptiness of condemnations coming out of the White House when the emptiness and broad-brush condemnations coming out of the Congress are no less offensive and perhaps more so. The fact is that the gentleman sits here and correctly points out responsible actions taken by members of the entertainment industry, whether it is the Disney company in the context of pulling certain shows off, whether it is ABC not showing R-rated movie commercials before 9 o'clock, whether it is the National Association of Theater Owners taking a voluntary rating system that has been in effect for 30 or 40 years and deciding that they are going to ID every single youthful appearing person who comes to a theater to make sure that no one is getting into R-rated movies without parental consent. Do not condemn a whole industry for the irresponsible actions and products of a specific company. Mr. Chairman, where does this blanket guilty by association broad-based defamation come from? Get specific. Tell us what they do not like and condemn what they do not like. Do not sweep a lot of good people under this, a lot of people who work in an industry and produce positive products for America. Do not destroy the manufacturer of a digital game like Tetris because they do not like this particular digital game. Start getting specific and meaningful. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon). Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from California.

I agree with him. I think it would be despicable to condemn an entire industry for the actions of people. We have got to get to personal responsibility. I am so proud that the Democrats would never condemn an entire industry just based on the actions of people. And I am sure they will not do that when it comes up to the gun issue. Frankly, when the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) asked me to come here and to talk about this, I said she was not going to need me. This is incredulous. A simple resolution calling on Hollywood to work with the Congress to work with the American people to help families to stave off the violence, not in a condemning way, to ask them to work with us. I told her you are not going to need me. My colleagues have to be brain dead to oppose this kind of amendment. Anybody who raises children, anybody who is not from some other solar system has got to understand that the impact of violence in the media is harming our children. And so, I appreciate this opportunity. [[Page H4482]] But think with me, if my colleagues will, some of the things that impact the mind. Has anybody ever seen the bumper sticker ``Visualize World Peace''? Do my colleagues know why that sticker has so much impact? Because before we can realize anything, we have got to visualize it. Think about the golf videos. I took up golf a couple years ago with my son, and we rent these videos so we can perfect our golf swing because we visualize ourselves on the video taking that perfect swing and then we go out on the golf course and we realize it. Well, the same thing happens when we watch something over and over and over again. The Bible says, ``As a man thinketh, so is he.'' Unless my colleagues are brain dead or bought off, they cannot disagree with that. The fact is what we see has a direct impact with what we do. And if we immerse ourselves in it enough, soon we become desensitized. And, no, it does not make us do anything. I am not Flip Wilson saying, ``The devil made me do it.'' But the fact is, the more we see something, the more we become desensitized. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Since all of us are brain alive and have not been bought off, now that we are outraged and we place blame and condemnation, what does the gentleman think else we might want to do today since we are dealing with this juvenile justice bill? Is there something besides just condemning and blaming? Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I do not see this as a condemnation. I see this as thoughtful discussion. Because frankly, I think the gentleman would agree, there are no quick-fix solutions. This is a problem within our society that is going to take a lot of hard work, a lot of rolling up our sleeves, a lot of bipartisan work, a lot of work out in the trenches, in the churches, in the neighborhoods, in the families. Frankly, we ought to look at all options, all options. {time} 1115 That is all I am asking. Let us not close our eyes simply because we want to defend one particular industry. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the remaining time on both sides? The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 8 minutes remaining. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in opposing this amendment. I rise to oppose it, and reluctantly, because of the high esteem that I have for the maker of the motion and for her cosponsors of it. My colleagues from California are tired of hearing my stump speech when I say to people when they ask me, what are the three most important issues facing our Congress and our country, I always say the same thing: The three most important issues we face are our children, our children, our children. Everything we do should be about their well-being and the future that we are providing for them. That is why it is very interesting for me today to come to the floor and see this blanketed condemnation of the entertainment industry being discussed on the floor. Certainly in the problems that we have in our country and the challenges that our children face, and in the aftermath of Littleton, Colorado, there is enough blame to go around everyplace. I know it is not the intention of the maker of the motion, but to some this amendment might seem like an attempt to deflect the blame from the gun industry and the easy accessibility of guns to another source of the violence in our country. As a politician, and I use that word with great pride, I myself am very offended at the way the public in a blanket way condemns us. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) said that we are either brain dead or bought off. I do not think that that was an accurate characterization of anybody in this body on either side of the aisle, but I think that the American people may think that of the Congress, and so when we hear Congress mocked, criticized and condemned for insatiable appetite for campaign funds, we are accused of being bought off across the board, I certainly do not think that they are referring to me or to my colleague, or to any individual in this body. Blanket condemnations really, as they say, all generalizations, are false, including this one. The condemnation of the entertainment industry, I think, is grossly unfair. Should we look into and do research on the impact of violence in the media on children and how they react to it? Certainly. I think if everybody had the goal in mind that this amendment ostensibly has, the Committee on Rules of this body would have allowed the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor as part of this bill. The Obey amendment, the Obey safe schools amendment, talks about safe schools, healthy students, community action grants to prevent violence, alternative schools for at-risk and delinquent youth, 21st century community learning centers, the National Academy of Sciences study on

mental health. We have to be looking into the mental aspects of this as well. The violence that the industry puts out is market-driven. I think that we must look to all of the root causes of the violence in our society. We must look into the home, we must look into how children's consciences are developed, but we cannot, when we are delinquent in all of the other areas, then decide to make life easy on ourselves by giving a blanket condemnation of the entertainment industry. I do not want to go into the number of jobs it creates and into what it does for the balance of payments and all that, because if they were doing the wrong thing, even that would not justify it. But I will say that our colleagues should oppose it; however good it sounds, it comes to us at the price of freedom. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to the gentlewoman with all due respect, whom I consider a good friend and for whom I have great respect, there have been a thousand studies in the last 45 years on the issue of violence and its impact on aggressive behavior with children, most all of which have shown a positive correlation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from California and his colleagues that we appreciate the sincerity of this debate. As my colleagues know, this is an element in society today that we are concerned about, and maybe this is not the best vehicle to correct the problem. But I do want to say, it does not condemn the motion picture industry or the entertainment industry. It does have some very positive language in here. We recommend that alternatives be developed concerning discouraging the exposure of children to violent subject matter. We do think that industry has been irresponsible, and that could be tightened up. We say we want the entertainment industry to recognize its power and influence over the Nation's youth and their behavior, and we want them to do everything in their power to stop the portrayals of pointless acts of brutality. So while it is too broad for my colleague, it is not as broad as it has been accused of being. But let me say this. While we are discussing it, positive things are happening. I was in the State legislature in Georgia when we debated a mandatory seat belt law. We debated that for 8 years before it was passed, but during the debate the awareness was heightened, and usage of seat belts went up. I think as long as we are talking about it, as long as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is having hearings about it, we are saying, let us bring this up, talk about it, and let us do it freely. This language has been structured by us to make sure that we do not violate the first amendment. This is an urging kind of thing. And it might be too broad for my colleague, but maybe we should come back and do it as a freestanding resolution that could give us a little more leeway on the language. [[Page H4483]] In recognition, though, the children are watching 20 hours of TV every week and countless hours listening to CDs, computers and videos and so forth, and we are worried that the influences that they are having from them can be negative. By the time a child is a senior in high school, he or she has seen 200,000 acts of violence on TV and 16,000 murders. Research shows overwhelmingly that there is a measurable increase in aggressive behavior from individuals who have been watching violent TV. Let me just say to my colleagues, I have young children; actually, not so young anymore, a 16- and a 14-year-old, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)'s son and mine played together at the bipartisan retreat. But Proximity Mines, a video game, this is how the makers of that game describe it in their own advertisement: A wave of shrapnel that can cut a man off at the knees and slice smaller enemies into a pulpy goo. This is what they are bragging about. Another video game, The Firestorm Cannon, delivers a literal rain of firepower. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the boys who were the perpetrators of Columbine, they were accomplished players of the video game Doom. Well, now there is a new video game Doom, but Doom II, which the promoter and the manufacturer advertises as being bigger, badder and bloodier than the original; this sequel extends the carnage started in Doom. It is something that we are very concerned about, as I know my colleagues are concerned. I never thought I would be quoting Marilyn Manson, but Marilyn Manson, whose CD, among other things, on his album, AntiChrist Superstar, has these words: The housewife I will beat, the prolife I will kill. I throw a little fit, I slash my teenage wrist, get your gunn, get your gunn. Yet, what does he have to say after Columbine? He has to say that the media makes heroes out of Klebold and Harris. Didn't be surprised if people get pushed into believing that these people are idols. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media has turned criminals into folk heroes. There is a broad enough spectrum of philosophy here that we can look into this and not be afraid to talk about it. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our ranking member. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and let him know that I think out of this discussion we may be justifying even why we had a sense of Congress resolution in a bill this complex. But I would like to turn my colleagues' attention, as along with the author of this measure, to hearings we held in the Committee on the Judiciary on May 13 on youth, culture and violence, and what a panel it was. Well, there were several panels. But involved were Michael Medved, the film critic; Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America; Dr. Dewey Cornell, professor of clinical psychology, University of Virginia; and we are reproducing these hearings. What Michael Medved, at the same panel with Jack Valenti, suggested is that we desperately need a ratings, universal rating system to cover all elements of pop culture, a clear and consistent means of labeling movies, television, CDs, video games, so that consumers can make much more informed choices on the marketplace. He said, ``Even Hollywood's most shameless apologists must face the fact that the current situation with ratings and parental warnings amount to a chaotic incomprehensible mess.'' It is from there that I would like to throw this out to the author of the amendment and my friend from Georgia to see if this resonates at all with my colleagues in terms of where we may go from the sense of Congress resolution. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman is saying is very important and a very good idea. I think what I want my colleagues to understand is the purpose of this amendment is really to begin the dialogue on this issue. We do not legislate, we do not make any new laws within the resolution, because it is my personal opinion that this is a huge issue that we must address, and what the gentleman is telling us is definitely an important part of that. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly where I want to go from here. I want to legislate. I want to make laws. We do not make doughnuts; that is all we have here, and to me these hearings that we have already had provide a very important way for us to move forward. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the managers that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining; and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 4 minutes remaining. Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, the entertainment industry and the academic community in study after study really documents this problem. There is no disagreement that this is a problem. I think this debate has been helpful today, and what it calls attention to is the interest of the Congress in seeing the industry do something about the facts they have. We could give all sorts of studies that show that youth violence does increase, aggressive behavior does increase when viewing, or a preference for violent television alone is part of their lifestyle. According to the national television violence study funded by the cable TV industry itself, who really with that report say to the country, we have a problem here, TV violence has continued to grow, since 1994, violence has increased in prime time broadcasts and basic cable programs. They also say that the way TV violence is depicted encourages children toward aggressive behavior. Sixty-seven percent of the programs carried by the network programs in prime time for cable included violence; 64 percent of those programs included violence in the 1996-1997 season. That violence is often glamorized. As my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, our business here should be about children, and however we solve this, it should be with the best interests of the children in America. According to a 1995 Mediascope study, perpetrators of violence go unpunished 73 percent of the time. The consequences of the violent action are almost never apparent. Thirty-nine percent of the time violence is depicted as part of humor. The facts can best be changed by the industry itself. That is what the gentlewoman from Missouri's amendment says. The best solution here is not a government solution, if the industry will take their steps to solve this first. This resolution calls on them to do that. I call on them to do that, and I ask my colleagues to include this important resolution in the legislation that we vote on today. {time} 1130 Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as the mother of four children, and soon to be 8 children actually, I can think of no greater love, no more profound or pure love than that which I have for my children. There is nothing in the world I would not do to protect them to keep them safe. I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens. This debate, as everyone has so eloquently said, really goes to the heart and soul of this country. It is about the kind of place that we make for our kids and for their children. I do not think one of us, not as legislators, not as parents, the gun lobby, the entertainment industry, our community leaders, priests, rabbis, ministers, no one, no one can shirk their responsibility and lay the blame at someone else's doorstep and say it is someone else's fault that our kids are killing kids today. We live in the greatest country in the world and I think we have to all join hands, put aside our political differences and come down and sit at the table and figure out what is wrong in our society today. It is far more important to do this than to play politics. It is far more important than winning elections. Quite frankly, I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that we, as the greatest law-making body in the world, would try to make political points with [[Page H4484]] an issue that is so important and so fundamental to the well-being of our country, and that is the safety and security of our children. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves. We do not need more studies. We do not need more laws. We need to talk. We need everyone at the table. All we are doing with this amendment is asking the entertainment industry to sit down with us. I will thank my colleagues for their eloquent words, both on my side and their side. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say I have a better understanding of the gentlewoman's motivations from the debate and appreciate them. I feel that this would be a better and more appropriate resolution if it focused on the bad actors or, in the alternative, recognized the tremendous good that the industry has brought. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank all of the participants and debaters on this issue. First of all, I want to acknowledge all of us who have come to the floor, and parents, who have the understanding and appreciation for our responsibility. So I thank the gentlewoman for allowing us this debate. I would simply say this: It is a good resolution to get us discussing the issue, but I would simply say to the gentlewoman that what we can do now is to allow the entertainment industry to come to the table, along with some of the other bad actors, because I think it is equally important that we say to the National Rifle Association that all that they have been promoting is not right and they have not been listening to those of us who have said we have to find a way to cease this violence, this gun violence, these actions on the part of our children. There are so many variables to helping our children understand that violence is not the way to go, and condemnation can occur. We can do this every day on the floor of the House, but will it bring about results? I would say to my colleagues, let us go back to our districts and go to the retailers of videos and CDs and ask them voluntarily to meet with us and begin to explain to parents how they should instruct their children when they come in to buy CDs and come in to buy videos, and so we have a voluntary cooperation to stop the violence amongst our children.