Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

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. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BERMAN. That is a lot more time on a very busy day.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is one point I hope that the Surgeon General's study does include, because there is an interesting question out here, the issue of depiction of violence through the media and the commission of violent acts, and the distribution of that same media throughout the world, and the existence of a lower violence rate in many other countries and what are the relationships and what are the reasons. I think this would be worth pursuing, too, because this becomes a part of the debate on the whole question of media violence and its contribution to violence in our society.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank very much both the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for yielding me the time. I support the amendment. I think establishing the science of the relationship between the depiction of violence and the impacts of media violence are legitimate, are important, and are relevant. And I think both gentlemen have fashioned a proposal that does this, removes all of the rhetoric on both sides and all of the efforts to point blame, and is an investment in real science. I hope that the NIH study would review the methodologies and the formulas that have been used by the different researchers, study the different conclusions and different statistical models that could be developed from those formulas. And I think questions that have not even been asked before by private researchers, the questions and the relevance of neighborhood violence and what kind of role that plays in terms of family, in terms of the commission of violence, family situations and their relationship to the root causes of violence, all these things, are a matter for investigation, not anecdote, empirical studies, science, not rhetoric. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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).

Mr. BERMAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BERMAN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

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.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to reemphasize the point that if we could analogize movies and music and books and television to potato chips and cigarettes, there would be no constitutional impediment whatsoever to government mandating of a rating system, but we cannot. The first amendment is very specific in its protection here. In the V-chip legislation that we will hear more about later, there were no criminal penalties. There was a voluntary rating system developed by an industry, enforced by an industry, connected to a technology to make it meaningful. With respect to the voluntary ratings system in the motion picture industry, with the recent decision of the National Association of Theater Owners, we will now find effective enforcement of a very effective rating system. I urge that this well-intentioned, but unconstitutional proposal be rejected.

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. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the remaining time on both sides?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think that given that this measure did not have the scrutiny of the Committee on the Judiciary and a chance to fine-tune it, I think it pays to take just a minute or two to sum up a few of the criticisms of the piece of legislation in front of us. First of all, it is not just about motion pictures, it is not just about television, it is not just about musical recordings; it applies to books, to pamphlets, to magazines, to drawings, to photographs, to sculptures. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, it seeks to translate the obscenity formula grafted onto depictions of violence and federalize the entire matter, and then claim to provide community standards so that a particular sculpture or movie or picture or book may have one standard and be quite fine for sale to minors in Manhattan, New York, and not in eastern Montana or in Jackson, Mississippi. A law which seeks to federalize the criminal conduct of selling inappropriate depiction of minor children, depictions of violence to minors, and at the same time decentralize community standards all across the country is going to have to fall as vague, impermissibly broad, and setting up an absence of adequate notice to any single person who might be regulated. Thirdly, it exonerates the producers of this; it criminalizes the activity of the vendors. Fourth, in response to the gentleman from Maryland, yes, the Federal Government spends a great deal of time protecting the clean air and the health and the welfare of the population, but a long time ago, we decided there were some limits on what the Federal Government could do. The first and foremost of that was the prohibition on the Federal Government interfering with protected speech. This seeks to strike at and criminalize protected speech. It is unconstitutional, and I think the Members of this body should not support and willingly pass a measure which has no chance whatsoever of being held up in the courts.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)